Jie  I 


riexateijc. 


AC  GIBSON 


REV.  VV. 


y,  Ph>D, 


4.Q44- 

Sirom  f  0e  feiBrari?  of 

(J^equeaf^e^  6e  ^itn  to 
f  ^e  &i6ratg  of 

(pxxnuion  C^eofogicdf  ^eminarj 


REASONS  FOR  THE  HIGHER 
CRITICISM  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH 


BY 

/ 

REV.  ISAAC  GIBSON 

RECTOR  OF  ST.  JOHN'S  CHURCH,  NORRISTOWN,  PA. 

Author  of  The  Pkntateuch  and  Joshua,  or  the  Hexateuch 
Historical 


INTRODUCTION  BY 
REV.  WILLIS   HATFIELD  HAZARD,  M.A. 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  (HARVARD) 

Associate  of  the  Victoria  Institute  of  Great  Britain,  Member  of 
the  American  Oriental  Society,  Etc. 


PHILADELPHIA 
GEORGE  W.  JACOBS  &  CO. 

103  South  Fifteenth  Street 
1897 


Copyright.  1897,  by  George  W.  Jacobs  &  Co. 


Contents 


I. 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM. 

II. 

THE  BIBLE   IN  THE   HOUSE  OF   ITS  FRIENDS. 

III. 

THE     TRADITIONS      CONCERNING      THE      AUTHORSHIP      OF      THE 
PENTATEUCH  AND  JOSHUA  OR  THE  HEXATEUCH,   UNRELIABLE. 

IV. 

THE     TESTIMONY     OF      CHRIST     UPON     THE     ORIGIN     OF     THE 
PENTATEUCH. 

V. 

SOME     PROBLEMS     OF     THE     HEXATEUCH     THAT     PROVE     READ- 
JUSTMENT BY  THE  HIGHER  CRITICISM  TO  BE  NECESSARY. 

VI. 

EXAMPLES    OF    THE    CRITICAL    ANALYSIS    OF    THE    HEXATEUCH 
INTO  THE  ORIGINAL  DOCUMENTS. 

VII. 
THE  ORIGIN  AND  PURPOSE  OF  THESE  DOCUMENTS. 

VIII. 
THE  ORDER  AND  DATES  OF  THE  COMPOSITE  WORK. 

IX. 

THE  HISTORICITY  OF  THE  ORIGINAL  DOCUMENTS. 

X. 

THEIR  INSPIRATION. 


Introduction 


It  is  with  pleasure  that  I  accept  the  invitation  of 
my  friend,  Mr.  Gibson,  to  write  a  few  introductory 
lines  for  his  book.  I  do  this  with  the  greater  willing- 
ness, because  I  believe  that  something  more  ought  to 
be  said  in  a  brochure  of  this  kind  on  two  or  three 
points  than  he  has  felt  himself  called  on  to  insert  in  the 
body  of  the  work.  Indeed,  the  things  I  have  in  mind 
are  suf^ciently  irrelevant  to  the  general  outline  of  Mr. 
Gibson's  thought,  to  render  them  unsuitable  for 
elaboration  in  any  other  place  than  just  such  a  semi- 
detached ''Introduction.'* 


The  appeal  that  this  book  makes  to  the  reading 
public  will  find  its  heartiest  response  among  the 
clergy  and  the  more  intelligent  lay  people.  It  is  dis- 
tinctly not  a  "popular"  statement  in  the  sense  of  en- 
deavoring to  do  all  the  thinking  for  the  reader.  On  the 
contrary,  the  author  has  wisely  chosen  to  direct  his 
argument  to  those  persons — after  all,  the  really  im- 
portant members  of  society — who  are  in  a  position  to 
assimilate  material  of  this  character  by  independent 

5 


O  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  serious  thought  on  their  own  parts,  and  who 
therefore  may  be  expected  to  welcome  such  a  state- 
ment as  the  present. 

They  will  do  this  precisely  for  the  reason  that  Mr. 
Gibson's  volume,  after  having  placed  before  them  the 
plain  facts  in  the  case,  pays  them  the  compliment  of 
taking  for  granted  that  they  will  prefer  in  large  part 
to  deduce  therefrom  for  themselves  the  principles  and 
results  that  are  genetically  and  logically  bound  up  in 
them. 

The  book,  then,  presupposes  that  its  readers 
shall  be  sufficiently  intelligent  and  sufficiently  inter- 
ested {both  are  essential),  to  apply  for  their  own  indi- 
vidual purposes  the  reasons  for  the  Higher  Criticism 
that  it  contains.  It  also  assumes  that,  should  the  two 
conditions  just  stated  be  satisfied,  they  will  not  decline 
the  somewhat  strenuous  mental  exertion  which  the 
work  demands  for  its  thorough  and  candid  mastery. 
Should  one  object  to  this  ''tax,"  the  answer  is  very 
simple. 

Many  popular  books  have  been  written  on  this 
subject,  and,  of  course,  another  could  have  been 
added  to  the  list,  had  the  author  so  desired.  But,  with 
rare  moderation,  he  chose  to  forego  the  delights  of 
this  relatively  easy  task  because  it  was  evident,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  that  all  such  treatises  must  be 
superficial,  slight  and  cursory.  They  must  skim  over 
the  subject,  dipping  but  little  below  the  surface,  and 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

therefore  must  set  forth  facts  so  obvious  that,  to  the 
reader  of  only  average  education,  they  must  lack 
novelty  and  cogency,  while  to  the  student,  they  shall 
be  commonplace  and  insufficient. 

This  is  inevitably  the  case  for  one  constant  and  char- 
acteristic reason:  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  an  extremely  intricate,  complex  and  elaborate 
intellectual  procedure.  The  talk  one  finds  in  books 
of  the  popular  class  about  the  ''simplicity"  and  "plain- 
ness" of  critical  investigation  is  all  specious  nonsense. 
The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  or  of  any 
other  body  of  literature  is  the  diametrical  opposite — 
it  involves  the  fullest  and  broadest  training  on  the  part 
of  its  professors.  It  requires  as  a  prerequisite  years 
of  special  study  resulting  in  the  development  of  a  reli- 
able critical  faculty,  illuminated  by  a  wide  familiarity 
with  not  only  the  laws  of  literary  production  and  the 
universal  principles  of  literary  criticism,  but  (certainly 
in  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament)  a  technical  knowl- 
edge of  Semitic  Philology  in  the  broadest  sense  of  that 
term,  together  with  at  least  a  working  knowledge  of 
Oriental  Archaeology,  anthropology  in  the  depart- 
ment of  ethnic  psychology,  the  phenomenology  of 
comparative  religion,  the  history  of  the  development 
of  thought  among  the  Semitic  nations,  and  last,  but 
not  least,  an  original  native  endowment  of  that  crit- 
ical sense  by  which  alone,  despite  the  widest  intellec- 
tual culture,  the  student  is  able  to  pronounce  reliable 
critical  judgments. 


8  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  if  this  sort  of  training 
is  necessary,  only  a  comparatively  small  fraction  of 
educated  people  can  possibly  attain  anything  ap- 
proaching distinction  in  higher  literary  criticism. 
Further,  it  is  clearly  quite  out  of  the  question  to 
make  an  expert  of  every  clergyman,  though  fairly  in- 
structed in  the  general  theological  sciences.  Indeed, 
very  few  people  are  in  a  position  to  put  them- 
selves through  even  the  necessary  external  train- 
ing, to  say  nothing  of  creating  that  fundamental 
habit  or  predilection  of  mind  and  essential  critical 
faculty,  without  which  the  other  is  just  so  much 
sterile  material.  The  bare  absorption  of  the  vast 
learning  which  constitutes  the  apparatus  of  criticism 
requires  a  diligence  in  application  and  an  accuracy  of 
apprehension  that  must  forever  restrict  it  to  a  mere 
fragment  of  the  educated  world.  Literally  years  of 
the  most  patient  and  laborious  endeavor  will  prepare 
the  vast  majority  of  students  only  to  understand  the 
significance  of  the  work  already  done. 

II. 

This  being  the  situation,  it  may  reasonably  be 
asked:  Why  undertake  to  ''popularize"  such  a  subject 
at  all?  If  it  really  demands  such  unusual  sacrifices,  why 
endeavor  to  disseminate  knowledge  among  untrained 
minds,  which  cannot  help  being  altogether  superficial, 
in   large   degree   merely   elementary,   and,   to   some 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

extent,  on  account  of  its  partialness,  positively  mis- 
leading? 

The  answer  is  the  same  that  would  be  given 
by  the  author  of  a  non-technical  work  on  astronomy, 
or  mathematical  physics,  or  therapeutics,  theology, 
linguistics,  physiological  psychology,  chemistry,  zool- 
ogy, or  any  other  abstruse  subject,  namely,  that 
enough  can  be  said  on  the  general  topic  to  ac- 
quaint the  ordinary  reader  with  many  important 
results,  to  show  their  significance  for  the  general 
methodology  of  science,  and  in  some  degree  even  to 
exhibit — if  only  in  a  very  simple  way — the  instru- 
ments by  which  the  specialist  works  to  reach  them. 

Such  a  consequence — while  it  in  no  degree  invests 
the  reader  with  authority  in  matters  critical — any 
man  with  the  slightest  spark  of  altruism  in  his  com- 
position or  desire  for  elevating  the  standard  of  general 
education,  must  hail  with  cordial  enthusiasm.  The 
old  adage,  that  half  a  loaf  is  better  than  none,  notwith- 
standing the  complementary  warning  as  to  the  danger 
of  a  little  learning,  still  stands  for  a  universal  truth  that 
men,  fortunately,  have  never  yet  been  willing  to  dis- 
card as  a  principle  of  the- intellectual  life.  It  is  the 
underlying  raison  d'etre  of  all  education.  Indeed  we 
may  go  further  and  say  that  partialness  is  a  note  of  our 
whole  life — cabin'd,  cribb'd  and  confin'd  as  it  effectu- 
ally is  by  its  finite  structure.  Therefore,  to  reject  some 
knowledge  because  it  is  not  complete,  would  involve 
rejecting  all  knowledge  of  whatever  description. 


10  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

On  the  contrary,  the  inherent  yearning,  even  pas- 
sion, for  knowledge  which  clamors  as  an  insatiable 
thirst  for  ''more"  is  the  sure  guarantee  that  mankind 
will  never  cease  its  quest.  With  Mr.  Bain:  "Among 
the  sensations  of  organic  life,  I  may  cite  thirst  as  re- 
markable for  the  urgency  of  its  pressure  upon  the 
will;"  which  means,  figuratively,  that  the  "flaming 
thirst"  of  knowledge  compels  the  will  to  any  expe- 
dient and  any  exertion  whereby  it  may  be  appeased. 
And  when,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  interest  is  stimulated  by  some 
impulse  connected  with  the  vital  sentiment  of  relig- 
ion, then  everyone  is  prepared  to  study,  so  far  as  in 
him  lies,  to  gratify  its  requirements. 

The  demand  has  resulted  in  a  corresponding  sup- 
ply of  "popular"  books  of  the  class  of  which  I  spoke 
at  the  beginning.  The  present  treatise  in  a  general 
way  does  belong  with  them.  In  a  different  sense,  as 
I  have  said,  it  does  not,  since  it  presupposes  a  certain 
amount  of  Biblical  scholarship,  a  certain  intensity 
of  interest  and  a  capacity  to  comprehend  the  sub- 
ject, which  are  associated  usually  with  previous  study. 
In  other  words,  the  man  who  knows  nothing  of  the 
questions  involved  in  this  particular  branch  of  learn- 
ing, and  who  has  not  a  somewhat  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  will  find  this 
book  rather  difficult  and  sometimes  obscure  reading. 
In    my    opinion,    this    is    exactly    as    it    should    be; 


INTRODUCTION.  II 

since  the  general  reader  is  already  amply  pro- 
vided for,  while  there  is  a  large  class  of  clergyman  and 
professional  men  who  apparently  have  been  neglected. 
To  them  this  book  will  be  a  real  boon.  It  presup- 
poses just  enough  familiarity  with  the  subject,  and  its 
perusal  requires  just  enough  time  to  suit  their  many 
exacting  engagements. 

III. 

I  have  entered  thus  fully  into  the  nature  of  the 
critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  partly  to  intro- 
duce the  observation  that  a  graduate  in  theology  from 
any  ordinary  seminary  is  not  qualified  by  the  usual 
curriculum  which  is  pursued  in  such  institutions 
either  to  conduct  original  research  on  his  own 
account,  or  to  test  the  labors  of  those  who  are.  At 
that  stage  he  is  simply  "beginning  to  be  a  learner." 
If  any  one  will  try  to  realize  what  it  means  to  fit 
oneself  for  competency  in  these  matters  as  outlined 
in  Section  I,  and  then  compare  therewith  the  scope  of 
the  undergraduate  course  in  theology,  he  will  admit 
the  truth  of  this  remark ;  and  since  the  learned  pursuits 
of  the  seminary  are  seldom  continued  in  the  active 
work  of  the  ministry,  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
that  the  ordinary  parish  priest  stands  in  much  the 
same  relation  to  the  expert  in  Biblical  criticism  as 
that  in  which  the  general  practitioner  of  medicine 
stands  to  the  specialist  in  appendichotomy,  or  bacteri- 
ology, or  neuropathology. 


12  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

But  there  is  to  be  noted  this  pervasive  difference: 
The  general  practitioner  looks  on  the  specialist 
not  only  as  a  source  of  information  and  direction,  but 
as  an  authority  in  his  own  department,  whose  dicta 
cannot  be  combated  except  by  his  peers.  His  relation 
to  the  specialist  is  therefore  that  of  unaffected  open- 
mindedness  and  frank  receptivity.  But  in  the  other 
case,  a  new  element  is  introduced.  We  find  not  only 
the  moderate  and  mutually  respectful  interest  that 
attaches  to  every  sincere  business  relationship,  but  a 
religious  enthusias^n.  Here  we  meet  one  of  the  strong- 
est psychical  characteristics  of  our  race, — the  senti- 
ment of  religion.  It  modifies,  because  it  supersedes, 
all  other  influences. 

This  is  peculiarly  true  of  the  clergyman.  His  re- 
ligion, I  mean  his  religion — the  theological  thought 
that  forms  the  material  of  the  peculiar  religion  that 
belongs  to  his  individual  personality — is  his  very  life's 
breath.  To  transmute  or  deliberately  orientate  any 
large  segment  of  it,  implies  not  only  overcoming  the 
natural  tendency  to  conservatism  which  is  as  much 
characteristic  of  the  physician  as  of  the  priest,  but  it 
means  relinquishing  some  of  the  essential  elements — 
for,  such  they  must  seem  at  first — of  his  intellectual 
and  moral  make-up.  Very  naturally  no  true  man 
does  this  hastily;  and  very  naturally  he  is  equally 
slow  in  appropriating  antithetical  views. 

Here  then,  we  touch  the  core  of  that  world-wide 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

antagonism  which  from  the  earliest  ages  of  philoso- 
phy has  been  the  constant  feature  in  the  correlation  of 
science  and  religion.  The  scientific  mind,  from  the 
present  point  of  view,  may  be  said  to  be,  from  its  very 
constitution,  frankly  and  unreservedly  open  to  new 
truth,  no  matter  what  radical  modifications  it  may 
carry  with  it.  The  perfect  scientific  mind,  which  ex- 
ists only  as  a  psychical  abstraction,  is  marked  by  per- 
fect neutrality.  Obviously,  such  a  mind  cannot  be 
found,  because  it  is  impossible  to  rid  oneself  com- 
pletely of  a  certain  warp  of  the  affections,  and  con- 
sequently of  the  will,  which  precludes  the  perfect  ad- 
justment of  the  judicial  faculty. 

The  religious  temper,  on  the  contrary,  is  one  that, 
broadly  speaking,  has  committed  itself,  with  all  the 
ardor  and  abandon  and  resolute  perseverance  that 
belong  to  the  religious  sentiment,  to  the  defence  of  a 
particular  theological  system.  This  defence  calls  into 
play,  indeed,  has  its  very  seat,  in  the  emotions  or  affec- 
tions rather  than  in  the  reason.  It  has  a  direct  and 
almost  unimpeded  influence  on  the  will,  which  in  turn 
reflects  on  the  mind.  Volition  modifies  and  condi- 
tions, while  it  inspires  the  reason.  It  does  this  in  both 
types,  but  in  the  religious  it  does  it  more  habitually, 
and  often  unrecognised ly.  The  subject  is  not  con- 
scious of  the  creation  of  an  intellectual  twist  at  the 
dictate  of  the  will  taught  by  the  affections. 

In  the  scientific  mind,  while  the  same  thing  may 


14  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

take  place,  for  both  are  sharers  in  the  psychical  unity 
of  mankind,  yet  the  purely  intellectual  so  consciously 
predominates  over  the  emotional,  and  is  characteristic- 
ally so  much  less  subject  to  such  impulses,  as  to  be 
practically  different  in  kind.  The  religious  mind,  as 
thus  described,  must  always  sufifer  in  comparison  with 
the  scientific  from  the  standpoint  of  truth.  If  our 
theory  of  epistemology  will  admit  the  legitimacy  of 
the  decisions  of  the  faculty  called  in  Sir  Wm.  Hamil- 
ton's scheme  the  faculty  of  cognition,  then  we  are 
bound  to  admit  that  the  progressive  character  of  all 
knowledge  puts  at  serious  disadvantage  that  type  of 
mind  which  has  committed  itself  irreformably  to  cer- 
tain concepts  in  defiance  of  fresh  information. 

Now,  of  course,  no  religious  man  would  admit  for 
a  moment  that  his  way  of  looking  at  things  has  preju- 
diced in  the  sHghtest  degree  the  power  of  his  mind  to 
assimilate  new  truth.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  his- 
tory of  religion  incontrovertibly  proves  that  it  does. 
It  must  be  conceded,  however,  in  fairness,  that  mere 
whimsical  captiousness  plays  little  part;  it  is  largely  an 
efifect  of  self-deception  and  the  unrecognized  influ- 
ence of  volition.  Still,  the  fact  remains,  that  theolo- 
gians, from  the  inherent  nature  of  their  rational  activi- 
ties, are  unwisely — often  disastrously  sluggish  in 
allowing  their  heads  to  instruct  their  hearts  in  matters 
with  which  the  latter  not  only  have  no  true  concern, 
but  on  which,  by  a  fatal  inversion,  the  hearts  insist 
they  should  instruct  the  heads. 


INTRODUCTION.  1 5 

Let  me  cite  a  representative  illustration.  A  bishop 
of  the  American  Church  recently  stated  in  an  open 
letter  (not  in  these  words)  that  as  regards  higher  criti- 
cism, the  old  traditional  view  was  "good  enough  for 
him;"  and  for  this  reason:  it  had  been  the  view  of  his 
fathers  in  ofBce  and  of  practically  the  whole  Church 
for  many  centuries,  and  the  sentiment  of  reverence 
which  its  venerability  inspired  infinitely  outweighed 
the  rationality  of  the  science  of  Biblical  criticism,  as  to 
which,  he  protested,  he  knew  nothing  and  cared  less. 
This  attitude,  which  is  simply  that  of  illiterate  obscur- 
antism, is  accurately  emblematic  of  the  religious  type 
of  mind.  It  has  manifested  itself  on  myriads  of  occa- 
sions since  the  dawn  of  the  modern  scientific  era,  and 
though  it  belongs  to  a  crude  stage  of  ethnic  culture, 
yet  every  student  of  the  evolution  of  human  thought 
knows  that  it  is  bound  to  persist  so  long  as  religion 
is  allowed  to  maintain  positions  antagonistic  to  the 
dictates  of  enlightened  reason.  All  of  which  is  in  line 
with  the  profound  remark  made  by  Mr.  Lowell,  that 
"theology  will  find  out  in  good  time  that  there  is  no 
atheism  at  once  so  stupid  and  so  harmful  as  the  fancy- 
ing God  to  be  afraid  of  any  knowfedge  with  which  He 
has  enabled  man  to  equip  himself." 

IV. 

Now,  while  the  attitude  just  sketched  is  surely  that 
taken  by  many  clergymen,  it  is  perfectly  evident  that 


l6  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

things  must  not  be  permitted  to  remain  in  statu  quo. 
Those  who  have  the  best  interests  of  religion  at  heart 
are  by  no  means  prepared  to  capitulate  in  the  struggle 
for  the  higher  illumination  of  religious  thought  at  the 
vociferous  and  blatant  behests  of  superstition,  preju- 
dice, bigotry,  infatuation,  and  above  all — ignorance. 

It  is  the  noble  privilege  of  every  man  who  believes 
that  God  will  give  the  ultimate  victory  to  truth,  to 
facilitate  to  his  full  ability  the  spread  of  knozvledge. 
He  must  further  the  inculcation,  especially  among 
clergymen,  of  an  appreciation  of  the  intelligibility,  the 
reliability  and  the  fundamental  religiousness  of  all  true 
science.  After  a  while,  this  will  achieve  two  invaluable 
results.  First,  it  will  make  it  possible  for  the  clerical 
mind  to  slough  off,  to  rid  itself  of  much  effete  matter 
that  the  expansion  of  the  theological  sciences  has  ren- 
dered acutely  burdensome;  i.  e.,  it  will  be  possible 
for  that  type  of  mind,  while  maintaining  with  greater 
cogency  and  attraction  than  ever  before,  the  funda- 
mental verities  of  the  Catholic  faith,  to  discard  many 
old  interpretations  thereof  which  to-day  are  utterly 
discredited  and  antiquated.  And  second,  it  will 
"popularize"  (in  the  best  sense)  to  a  degree  simply 
out  of  the  question  in  the  present  state  of  clerical 
alienation,  those  vast  stores  of  cultural  influences  that 
make  so  gloriously  for  the  spread  of  social  efificiency 
which  are  found  in  the  new  readings  that  have  become 
ours  during  this  marvellous  Victorian  era  of  the  book 


INTRODUCTION.  I'J 

of  nature,  the  book  of  the  human  mind  and  the  Book 
of  God! 

V. 

A  word  in  conclusion  on  the  particular  thought 
this  Introduction  has  endeavored  to  present. 

The  following  pages  were  written  by  the  busy 
rector  of  a  large  parish  to  meet,  as  I  take  it,  precisely 
the  conditions  that  have  called  forth  the  preceding  re- 
marks. The  author  of  this  book  has  tried  to  do  his 
part  in  circulating  certain  ideas  that  he  has  found  to 
be  of  inestimable  value  in  his  own  thinking  about 
the  problems  that  have  emerged  since  the  youngest 
reader  of  these  words  was  born.  As  compared  with 
the  stereotyped,  obsolescent  treatment  of  the  Bible 
that  was  accepted  outside  the  limited  circle  of  special- 
ists down  to  within  the  last  two  or  three  decades,  the 
present  system  is  an  advance  of  such  profound  signifi- 
cance, that  the  two  are  nothing  short  of  mutually 
destructive. 

The  old  view  is  indeed  exploded  beyond  hope 
of  rehabilitation;  and  any  modification  of  the  new 
must  be  the  result  of  discoveries  so  radical  and 
remote  and  discordant  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
discoveries  up  to  the  present,  that  their  possibility, 
humanly  speaking,  is  merely  supposititious  and  hypo- 
thetical. 

One  can't  help  hoping  that  in  the  face  of  the 
present  situation,  we  have  seen  nearly  the  end  of  that 


l8  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

buoyant,  airy  juvenility  which  presumes,  without  the 
slightest  qualification,  to  pronounce  judgments  upon 
and  usually  to  dismiss  with  easy  nonchalance  and 
almost  incredible  superciliousness,  the  results  of  the 
labors  of  scores  of  the  best  minds  with  which  this 
nineteenth  Christian  century  has  been  blessed.  Is  it 
strange  if  such  ''judgments"  seem  to  scholars  a  trifle 
premature,  not  to  say  silly?  Do  not  such  people,  in 
what  all  admit  is  a  well-intentioned  zeal  for  religion, 
deliberately  lay  themselves  open  to  the  charge  of 
talking  about  things  of  which,  in  honest  candor,  they 
must  be  judged  ignorant f  We  all  know  what  is  said 
when  such  things  happen  in  other  departments  of 
learning  that  involve  special  preparation,  and  can  the 
''critics  of  the  critics"  be  surprised  or  hurt  when  the 
same  is  said  of  them? 

VI. 

It  is  pleasanter  to  turn  from  this  picture  of  jarring 
ecclesiastics  to  the  broad  meads  and  inviting  shades  of 
academic  groves  where,  if  anywhere,  through  devo- 
tion to  pure  scientific  truth  and  direct  intercourse 
with  each  other,  men  should  always  be  able  to  sink 
differences  of  belief  in  the  higher  unity  of  personal 
respect  and  warm  affection.  That  spirit  of  fraternal 
deference  and  of  admiration  for  noble  qualities  of  soul 
which  belongs  peculiarly  to  our  Christian  religion,  is 
the  indissoluble  bond  that  unites  every  one  of  us. 


INTRODUCTION.  I9 

When  each  is  striving  in  unimpeachable  sincerity  for 
''the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  we  are  all  within  reach  of 
that  magic  solvent — the  Christian's  love — which  de- 
molishes animosities  and  rears  that  fabric  in  the 
heavens  toward  which  we  are  toiling  ourselves  and 
helping  to  direct  others.  In  no  spirit  of  mawkish 
religionism,  but  with  profoundest  reverence  and  aspi- 
ration, we  can  all  pray  the  Whitsun  collect: 

"O  God,  who  didst  teach  the  hearts  of  thy  faithful 
people,  by  sending  to  them  the  light  of  thy  Holy 
Spirit;  Grant  us  by  the  same  spirit  to  have  a  right 
judgment  in  all  things,  and  evermore  to  rejoice  in  his 
holy  comfort;  through  the  merits  of  Christ  Jesus  our 
Saviour,  who  liveth  and  reigneth  with  thee,  in  the 
unity  of  the  same  Spirit,  one  God,  world  without  end. 
Amen. 

Willis  Hatfield  Hazard. 

West  Chester,  Pa., 
Whitsuntide,  1897. 


'Co  tbc  Reader 


The  author  regrets  to  be  compelled  to  apologize  for 
the  frequent  repetitions  that  occur  in  the  following  pages, 
but  he  will  be  forgiven  when  it  is  seen  that  they  could 
not  have  been  avoided  without  sacrificing  the  clearness 
of  the  argument  to  the  demands  of  literary  taste.  Each 
chapter  is  complete  in  itself,  and  in  order  to  preserve 
unity  of  subject  and  make  evident  the  logical  character 
of  the  argument,  it  was  found  necessary  to  use  the  same 
historical  matter  and  forms  of  analysis  in  several  of  them. 

Other  shortcomings  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  for- 
give, but  even  these,  it  is  hoped,  do  not  seriously  interfere 
with  the  reasons  presented  for  the  existence  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch.  I.  G. 


ERRATA. 

Page  23.       8  lines  from  top,  for  "  has  "  read  "  had." 
"    3r.     18     "         "       "       "     "  xxiv "  read  "  xxxiv." 
"39.     17     "         "       "       "     "  8  "  read  "  15  and  16. " 
"    39.     17     "      for  quotation  following  "S"  read  "They 
went  in  unto  Noah  into  the  Ark  two  and  two  of  all  flesh  ^  *  *  *  *  * 
as  Eloliim  commanded  him." 

Page  41,     7  lines  from  top,  for  "x  "  read  "  v  " 

"     57.     8     "         "      bottom,  for  "  xxii  "  read  "  xxvii." 
"     70,     5     "         "  "  "   "provinces"  read  "provi- 

dences." 

Page  75.     13  lines  from  top,  for  "  xxii  "  read  "  xvii." 


Reasons  for  the  f)igber  Criticism 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    PROGRESS    OF    CRITICISM. 
I. 

Within  the  present  generation  there  has  been  a  revo- 
lution in  the  methods  and  resuhs  of  Bibhcal  Studies. 

For  centuries  the  scholars  of  the  Church  accepted, 
with  httle  question,  the  tradition  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
written  by  Moses  and  the  book  of  Joshua  by  Joshua.  The 
highest  Enghsh  and  American  authorities  so  gave  their 
verdict. 

Continental  Europe  4f»^  made  greater  progress. 
The  traditional  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  Joshua  had  not  only  been  questioned,  but,  as  multi- 
tudes of  the  best  scholars  in  Orientalism  believed,  it  had 
been  disproved.  The  Higher  Criticism  had  vindicated 
its  claim  that  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  were  parts  of 
one  book — the  Hexateuch,  which  was  the  work  of  many 
writers  during  many  ages ;  that  it  was  a  composite  book, 
completed  late  in  Hebrew  life  and  composed  of  excerpta 
from  four  leading  documents  usually  denominated  by 
critics  the  Yahvistic,  Elohistic,  Deuteronomistic  and  the 
Priestly  Documents. 

When  the  Higher  Criticism  began  to  attract  notice 
in  this  country,  the  discussion  had  grown  old  in  Conti- 
nental Europe.     For  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  it  had 

23 


iv^*^' 


24  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

been  more  or  less  prominent.  From  Astruc  to  Dillman 
and  Konig  it  had  passed  through  the  phases  of  many 
theories  with  varying  fortunes.  Like  all  new  sciences 
it  needed  numerous  readjustments  to  meet  the  exigencies 
of  freshly-discovered  facts.  For  a  long  time  it  was  a 
working  hypothesis  rather  than  a  science.  Attaining 
at  last  to  the  rank  of  a  science,  it  was  unfortunately 
claimed  by  the  various  schools  of  sceptics  as  an  ally,  and 
used  by  them  to  disprove  the  claims  of  the  Hexateuch  to 
historicity.  This  brought  the  whole  subject  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  under  suspicion  in  this  country  and  in 
England,  and  it  required  not  a  little  courage  upon  the 
part  of  W.  Robertson  Smith,  T.  K.  Cheyne,  and  a  few 
others,  to  insist  that  the  principles  of  the  new  science 
of  criticism  were  not  only  true,  but  that  they  were  not  of 
sceptical  tendency  or  unfriendly  to  the  supernatural  in 
the  Bible;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  and  they  alone 
could  conserve  successfully  the  revelations  from  God 
which  it  contained. 

For  the  maintenance  of  these  claims  Dr.  Smith  (1878) 
was  brought  to  trial,  and  deposed  from  his  Aberdeen  pro- 
fessorship in  188 1.  While  under  fire,  he  gave  to  the 
world  his  lectures  upon  "The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jew- 
ish Church"  and  'The  Prophets  of  Israel,"  which  placed 
him  in  the  van  of  the  great  conflict  which  immediately 
followed. 

The  success  of  these  lectures  was  phenomenal,  and 
their  author  found  refuge  in  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
where  he  was  more  than  compensated  for  his  lost  honors 
by  the  greater  liberality  and  broader  spirit  of  English 
scholarship..  He  became  the  leader  of  a  school  of  critics 
represented  in  the  literary  world  by  such  names  as  Drs. 
Cheyne,  Driver,  Bruce,  Sanday,  Kirkpatrick,  Horton, 
Ryle,  Gore,  and  Dufif,  in  Great  Britain,  and  in  America 
by  Drs.  Bacon,  Briggs,  Harper,  Batten,  Moore,  Toy, 
Peters,  Rogers,  Gould,  McCurdy,  and  a  host  of  others. 


THE  PROGRESS   OF  CRITICISM.  2$ 

11. 

THE  BIBLE   IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  ITS   FRIENDS. 

The  leading-  higher  critics  are  not  seeking  to  invali- 
date the  claim  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  but  to 
give  that  claim  a  historic  basis;  in  proof  of  which  take 
the  following  testimonies: 

Dr.  W.  Robertson  Smith  says,  in  his  first  edition  of 
'The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church :"  'The  great 
value  of  historical  criticism  is,  that  it  makes  the  Old  Test- 
ament more  real  to  us.  Christianity  can  never  separate 
itself  from  its  historical  basis  on  the  religion  of  Israel.  The 
revelation  of  God  in  Christ  cannot  be  divorced  from  the 
earlier  revelation  on  which  our  Lord  built.  In  all  true 
religion  the  new  rests  upon  the  old. 

"No  one,  then,  to  whom  Christianity  is  a  reality  can 
safely  acquiesce  in  an  unreal  conception  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment history;  and  in  an  age  when  all  are  interested  in  his- 
torical research,  no  apologetic  can  prevent  thoughtful 
minds  from  drifting  away  from  faith,  if  the  historical 
study  of  the  old  covenant  is  condemned  by  the  Church 
and  left  in  the  hands  of  unbelievers.     *     *     * 

"The  history  of  Israel,  when  rightly  studied,  is  the 
most  vivid  and  real  of  all  histories,  and  the  proofs  of 
God's  working  among  his  people  of  old  may  still  be  made 
one  of  the  strongest  evidences  of  Christianity.  It  was  no 
blind  chance,  no  mere  human  wisdom  that  shaped  the 
growth  of  Israel's  religion,  and  finally  stamped  it  in  these 
forms,  now  so  strange  to  us,  which  preserved  the  living 
seed  of  the  divine  word  till  the  fullness  of  time,  when 
He  was  manifested  who  transformed  the  religion  of  Israel 
into  a  religion  for  all  mankind." 

Dr.  S.  R.  Driver,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  and 
Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  who  is  the  first  Eng- 
lishman to  give  a  completed  historical  analysis  of  the  Old 
Testament,  expresses  himself  to  like  effect : 


26  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

"It  is,"  he  says,  "impossible  to  doubt  that  the  main 
conclusions  of  critics  with  reference  to  the  authorship  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  rest  upon  reasonings, 
the  cogency  of  which  cannot  be  denied  without  denying 
the  ordinary  principles  by  which  history  is  judged  and 
evidence  estimated.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  same 
conclusions  upon  any  neutral  field  of  investigation  would 
have  been  accepted  without  hesitation  by  all  conversant 
with  the  subject;  they  are  only  opposed  in  the  present 
instance  by  some  theologians  because  they  are  supposed 
to  conflict  with  the  requirements  of  the  Christian  faith. 
*  *  *  The  truth,  however,  is,  that  apprehensions  of 
the  character  just  indicated  are  unfounded.  It  is  not  the 
case  that  critical  conclusions,  such  as  those  expressed  in 
the  present  volume,  are  in  conflict  either  with  the  Chris- 
tian creeds  or  with  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.  The 
conclusions  affect  not  the  fact  of  revelation  but  only  its 
form.  They  help  to  determine  the  stages  through  which 
it  passed,  the  different  phases  it  assumed,  and  the 
process  by  which  it  was  built  up;  they  do  not  touch  either 
the  authority  or  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament. 
'^  *  *  Criticism  in  the  hands  of  Christian  scholars 
does  not  banish  or  destroy  the  inspiration  of  the  Old 
Testament,  it  presupposes  it;  it  seeks  only  to  determine 
the  conditions  under  which  it  operates,  and  the  literary 
forms  through  which  it  manifests  itself;  and  it  thus  helps 
us  to  form  a  truer  conception  of  the  methods  which  it  has 
pleased  God  to  employ  in  revealing  himself  to  his  ancient 
people  Israel,  and  in  preparing  the  way  for  the  fuller 
manifestation  of  himself  in  Jesus  Christ." — Introduction 
to  The  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament.    Pp.  lo,  ii,  13. 

Dr.  Charles  A.  Briggs  claims  that  "the  higher  criti- 
cism of  the  Hexateuch  vindicates  its  credibility.  It 
strengthens  its  historical  credibility  (i)  by  showing  that  we 
have  four  parallel  narratives  instead  of  the  single  narra- 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  CRITICISM.  2J 

tive  of  the  traditional  theory,  and  (2)  by  tracing  these 
narratives  to  their  sources  in  the  more  ancient  documents 
buried  in  them.  It  traces  the  development  of  the  original 
Mosaic  legislation  to  its  successive  stages  of  codification 
in  accordance  with  the  historical  development  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  It  finds  minor  discrepancies  and  inac- 
curacies, such  as  are  familiar  to  the  students  of  the  Gos- 
pels; but  these  increase  the  historic  credibility  of  the 
teachings,  as  they  show  that  the  writers  and  compilers 
were  true  to  their  sources  of  information,  even  if  they 
could  not  harmonize  them  in  all  respects."— T/z^  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch.    P.  3. 

Dr.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  Canon  of  Ely  Cathe- 
dral, says:  "In  all  this  diversity  of  many  parts  and  many 
fashions  there  is  a  unity  which  binds  together  the  various 
books  [of  the  Bible]  in  a  single  whole.  It  is  no  artificial 
and  external  uniformity,  but  a  natural  and  organic  unity 
of  life  and  spirit.  Natural  and  undesigned,  so  far  as  the 
several  authors  of  the  many  books  collected  in  the  Divine 
Library  of  the  Old  Testament  are  concerned,  and,  there- 
fore, all  the  more  attesting  it  as  supernatural  and  de- 
signed. For,  to  the  question,  whence  comes  this  living 
unity  which  pervades  and  animates  this  whole  in  all  its 
divers  parts?  the  Christian  student  can  make  but  one 
answer — that  it  comes  from  God  himself,  who  speaks 
through  historian  and  prophet  and  psalmist.  These  books 
in  all  their  variety  are  oracles  of  God ;  they  are  living  ora- 
cles; and  because  the  life  which  is  their  common  charac- 
teristic was  breathed  into  them  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
giver  of  life,  we  agree  to  call  them  inspired." — The  Di- 
vine Library  of  the  Old  Testament.    Pp.  85,  86. 

Dr.  Alexander  Balmain  Bruce,  Professor  of  Apolo- 
getics and  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in  the  Free 
Church  College,  Glasgow,  has  won  for  himself  a  high 


28  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

place  in  the  confidence  of  the  Christian  world  by  his  great 
works,  'The  Kingdom  of  God,"  "The  Humiliation  of 
Christ,"  'The  Training  of  the  Apostles,"  and  'The  Para- 
bolic Teaching  of  Christ."  To  doubt  the  loyalty  of  Dr. 
Bruce  to  the  Bible  would  be  a  logical  impossibility,  and 
yet,  in  his  last  book,  "Apologetics;  or,  Christianity  De- 
fensively Stated,"  he  works  upon  the  basis  of  the  higher 
criticism,  and  reaches  the  conclusion  "that  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  are  a  true  light  from  heaven,"  though  "a  light 
shining  in  a  dark  place  until  the  dawn  of  day."    P.  336. 

Dr.  W.  Sanday,  Dean  Ireland  Professor  of  Exegesis, 
Fellow  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford,  Preacher  at  White- 
hall, has  won  for  himself  a  standing  on  the  highest  plane 
of  Christian  scholarship  by  his  critical  writings,  espe- 
cially by  his  defense  of  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John.  He  says:  "My  experience  is  that 
criticism  leads  straight  up  to  the  supernatural,  and  not 
away  from  it.  I  mean  that  if  we  let  the  Biblical  writers 
speak  for  themselves,  they  tell  us,  in  quite  imequivocal 
terms,  that  they  wrote  by  divine  prompting.  The  spoken 
word  of  prophet  and  apostle  was  put  in  their  mouths  by 
God,  and  the  written  word  was  only  the  spoken  word 
committed  to  writing,  or  on  the  same  footing  with  it.  If 
we  take  a  plain  and  unsophisticated  (though  strictly  crit- 
ical) view  of  what  the  Biblical  writers  tell  us,  we  shall 
accept  them  at  their  word.  We  are  willing  to  explain 
them,  to  set  them  in  their  proper  place  in  space  and  time, 
to  give  them  their  true  position  in  the  development  of 
God's  purposes,  but  we  refuse  to  explain  them  away." 
He  expresses  deep  regret  and  concern  for  the  late  action 
against  Dr.  Briggs.  "It  seems  to  us,"  he  continues,  "that 
a  stand  is  taken  in  the  wrong  place;  that  one  whom  we 
know  to  be  essentially  moderate  and  essentially  loyal  is 
treated  as  if  he  were  neither;  that  a  veto  has  been  practi- 
cally put  upon  enquiries  which  have  a  certain  future  be- 


THE  PROGRESS   OF  CRITICISM.  29 

fore  them,  and  that  a  Hne  of  partition  is  drawn  at  a  point 
which  cannot  be  permanently  tenable.  With  us  (in  Eng- 
land) the  battle  has  been  fought,  and  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  won.  And  the  consequence  is  that  English 
Christianity  has  a  feeling  of  hopeful  energy  and  expan- 
siveness  about  it  such  as  it  has  hardly  had  since  the  days 
of  Milton." — Arena  for  December,  1893. 

In  substantial  agreement  with  these  experts  in  the 
''higher  criticism"  are  such  high  authorities  as  Benjamin 
Wisner  Bacon  in  'The  Genesis  of  Genesis,"  Rev.  C.  H. 
Piepenbring  in  "Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,"  Rev. 
R.  F.  Horton  in  "Revelation  and  the  Bible,"  and  Rev. 
Jabez  Thomas  Sunderland  in  "The  Bible:  Its  Origin, 
Growth  and  Character." 

On  page  262  of  the  last-named  work  we  find  these 
strong  words:  "The  higher  criticism  of  the  Bible  is  at 
present  under  fire.  Against  the  new  light  which  scholar- 
ship has  brought  and  is  bringing  to  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  many  warning  voices  are  raised.  The  brave, 
strong,  true  men  who  are  leading  this  advance  are  often 
called  hard  names,  denounced  as  destroyers,  tried  by 
ecclesiastical  courts  as  heretics.  From  many  quarters  we 
are  told  that  they  are  trying  to  destroy  the  Bible.  But 
the  exact  opposite  is  true.  They  are  trying  to  save  the 
Bible." 

I  omit  to  mention  many  names  of  men  of  high  repute 
in  the  Church  who,  like  those  above  mentioned,  are  advo- 
cates, more  or  less  pronounced,  of  the  methods  and  legit- 
imate results  of  the  higher  criticism,  because  I  have  shown 
with  sufficient  fullness  that  the  higher  critics,  as  a  rule, 
are  not  seeking  to  destroy  the  Bible,  but  are  seeking  to 
show  the  methods  of  the  divine  procedure  in  its  forma- 
tion, and  to  indicate  the  historical  sources  from  whence 
were  drawn  its  divine  teachings. 

Not  only  are  many  leading  orientalists  in  this  country 


30  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

and  Europe  supporters  of  reverent  historical  criticism,  but 
not  a  few  archaeologists  are  in  complete  sympathy  with 
its  results.  Among  these  are  such  men  as  Maspero, 
Lenormant,  Fd.  Delitzsch,  Paul  Haupt,  Hugo  Winkler, 
Ebers,  Brugsch  and  Boscawen. 

The  work  of  the  archaeologists  has,  however,  little 
bearing  upon  the  special  province  of  the  higher  critics. 
It  is  chiefly  confirmatory  of  the  doctrines  of  the  conserva- 
tive as  against  those  of  the  radical  critics  concerning  his- 
toricity. The  archaeologists  of  late  have  made  many  dis- 
coveries which  render  it  probable  that  the  Hebrews,  like 
their  civilized  neighbors,  possessed  written  historical  rec- 
ords, and  that  many  of  their  institutions  ascribed  to  Moses 
were  of  great  antiquity.  They  have  shown  that  the  story 
of  Israel,  from  the  call  of  Abraham  to  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  was  in  harmony  with  historical  conditions.  All 
this  the  conservative  critics  gladly  accept.  But  let  it  be 
7wted  that  the  archccolo gists  have  made  no  discovery  which 
confirms  the  tradition  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch.  The 
excavations  at  Pithom,  for  instance,  show  that  a  large 
quantity  of  bricks  were  made  without  straw  during  the 
assumed  period  of  the  oppression  of  the  Hebrews,  which 
gives  a  historic  coloring  to  the  story  in  Exodus  v;  but 
nothing  has  been  discovered  anywhere  to  make  doubtful 
the  contention  of  the  critics  that  that  story,  in  its  present 
form,  was  written  by  a  prophet  of  Judah  about  800  B.  C. 
No  doubt  this  writer  had  before  him  the  written  records 
of  many  ancient  traditions,  and,  it  may  be,  contemporary 
chronicles,  that  he  freely  used  in  his  compilation,  but  the 
authorship  of  such  literature  must  ever  remain  unknown, 
except  as  to  certain  things  said  in  the  records  to  have 
been  written  by  Moses. 

The  facts  that  are  to  determine  the  origin  of  the  Pent- 
ateuch are  purely  literary,  and  are  to  be  found  mainly 
in  the  book  itself  and  in  the  historical  books  from  Joshua 


THE   PROGRESS   OF   CRITICISM.  3 1 

to  Ezra-Nehemiah.  No  possible  discoveries  of  archae- 
ologists can  alter  these  facts.  Take,  for  instance,  the  state- 
ments of  Leviticus-Numbers  concerning  the  exclusive 
altar  of  sacrifice  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  contrasted 
with  the  statement,  said  to  have  been  made  by  Moses, 
in  Deuteronomy  xii:  1-12,  according  to  which  no  such 
exclusive  altar  existed,  or  was  to  exist,  until  new  condi- 
tions should  have  arisen  in  the  distant  future.  If  archae- 
ologists should  discover  proof  of  the  existence  of  the 
exclusive  altar  of  sacrifice  in  the  Wilderness,  the  literary 
forms  would  remain  unaltered,  and  it  would  still  be  im- 
possible to  recognize  the  truth  of  both  accounts.  Even  in 
such  case  archaeologists  would  give  no  support  to  the 
tradition  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Whatever  the  testimony  of  the  monuments,  the  Penta- 
teuch, I  repeat,  must  be  judged  by  its  literary  conditions. 
Take  another  case.  There  are  three  recensions  of  the 
Ten  Commandments,  viz..  Exodus  xx  and  xxiv  and^^XXiV 
Deuteronomy  v.  If  some  fortunate  archaeologist  were 
to  discover  the  broken  tables  of  the  law,  he  would  furnish 
proof  of  the  original  "ten  words,"  which,  if  the  same  as 
one  of  the  three,  would  be  satisfactory  as  to  that  one;  but 
would  throw  no  light  upon  the  origin  of  the  other  two, 
except  to  demonstrate  that  they  were  not  of  Mosaic 
authorship.  Thus  we  see  how  powerless  archaeologists 
are  to  solve  the  problems  of  Hexateuchal  literature.  But 
what  they  cannot  do  the  Higher  Critics  easily  accomplish 
by  showing  that  the  compilers  of  the  Hexateuch  made  use 
of  more  or  less  independent  traditions  in  their  composite 
work.  Conservative  critics  hail  with  pleasure  all  dis- 
coveries of  archaeologists  that  aid  in  solving  the  historical 
problems  of  the  Bible;  and,  as  we  have  just  seen,  archae- 
ologists, with  a  few  exceptions,  accept  the  literary  analy- 
sis of  the  critics.  Among  the  exceptions  Professors  Sayce 
and  Hommel  have  made  themselves  conspicuous.    While 


32  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

both  accept  the  composite  theory  in  part,  they  complain 
that  the  critics  carry  their  process  of  analysis  much  too 
far — "are  too  hair  spHtting,"  etc.  But  this  is  not  their 
most  important  blunder,  for  they  fail  to  discriminate  be- 
tween the  two  great  schools  of  critics,  though  their  distinc- 
tive differences  are  known  to  the  whole  literary  world. 
They  must  know  that  the  radical  school  of  Wellhausen, 
on  the  subject  of  historicity,  is  antagonized  by  a  host  of 
conservative  critics,  who  accept  with  it  generally  the 
analysis  of  the  Hexateuch.  As  against  the  former  their 
arguments  are  usually  valid,  but  as  against  the  latter 
they  are  irrelevant  and  unfair. 

The  attention  of  Professor  Sayce  has  been  called  to 
this  state  of  the  question,  but  he  persists  in  recognizing 
only  one  school  of  Higher  Critics,  and  in  denouncing  all 
as  alike  radically  destructive.  This  is  the  trick  of  a  special 
pleader,  and  not  the  honest  proceeding  of  a  scientist.  Pro- 
fessor Hommel  may  be  more  or  less  ignorant  of  the  state 
of  the  question  in  England  and  America,  but  he  fails  to 
notice  the  conservative  schools  of  Dillman  and  Konig  as 
prominent  factors  in  the  controversy  in  Germany,  which 
fact  shows  him  to  be  quite  as  much  of  a  special  pleader 
as  Sayce,  and,  therefore,  equally  unreliable.  The  higher 
criticism  does  not  stand  or  fall  with  the  historical  theories 
of  the  school  of  Wellhausen.  Its  firm  foundation  is  the  lit- 
erary analysis,  which,  as  I  have  just  indicated,  is  accepted 
by  both  conservatives  and  radicals.  Archaeologists  may 
demolish  the  theories  of  the  latter  upon  historicity,  but 
the  facts  show  that  they  have  no  weapon  against  the 
former.  The  analysis  really  confirms  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  narrative  portions  of  the  ancient  documents. 
Dr.  Briggs,  as  quoted  above,  insists  that  the  analysis 
gives  us  four  witnesses  to  the  truth  instead  of  one,  and 
while  Professor  Hommel  rejects  what  he  calls  the  min- 
ute hair-splitting  of  the  critics,  he  says:    'The  existence 


THE   PROGRESS   OF   CRITICISM.  33 

of  this  double  narrative  has  been  questioned,  it  is  true, 
by  many  learned  apologists.  Professor  Green  being 
among  the  number,  but  without  reason.  Such  an  atti- 
tude was  due  to  a  natural  reaction  from  the  unfair  use  of 
these  duplicate  passages  by  modern  critics  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  their  efforts  to  discredit  the  historical  credibility 
of  the  whole.  For  my  part,  I  think  we  have  a  right  to 
draw  from  them  an  exactly  opposite  inference.  The  more 
numerous  the  discrepancies  in  unimportant  details  be- 
tween two  independent  accounts  of  an  event,  so  much 
the  higher  is  the  probability  that  the  event  itself  is  historic- 
ally true."  While  conservative  critics  can  ask  no  more 
than  this  of  him,  they  rightly  protest  that  the  accepted 
analysis  of  the  Higher  Critics  being,  as  it  is,  the  result  of 
long  and  patient  work  of  experts,  shall  not  be  pushed 
aside  by  one  who,  though  he  may  be  an  expert  in  deci- 
phering inscriptions,  is  certainly  incompetent  to  produce 
a  new  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch. 

III. 

THE  ANCIENT  TRADITIONS. 

It  is  often  asserted  that  a  spirit  of  arrogant  egotism 
has  moved  critical  scholars  to  reject  *'the  traditions  of 
three  thousand  years,"  but  every  fairly  informed  student 
knows  that  no  such  spirit  has  animated  them.  It  is  true 
that  they  reject  the  idea  that  the  mere  duration  of  a  tradi- 
tion is  prima  facie  evidence  of  its  truth,  but  they  treat  it 
with  due  respect,  and  subject  it  scrupulously  to  the  ac- 
cepted methods  of  the  science  of  history,  insisting  not 
only  that  it  be  old,  but  also  that  it  be  not  contradictory 
to  the  age  which  it  claims  to  represent. 

Precisely  here  it  is  that  modern  critical  scholarship 
takes  issue  with  the  traditions  concerning  the  origin  of 
the  Hexateuch.     These  traditions  are  old,  but  not  old 


k 


34  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

enough  to  be  used  in  evidence.  Had  they  arisen  in  the 
days  of  Moses  or  Joshua,  or  about  that  time,  and  had 
their  existence  received  incidental  notices,  or  been  im- 
pHed  in  contemporaneous  records  or  traditions,  they 
would  have  had  reputable  standing  in  the  court  of  histor- 
ical criticism.  But  the  facts  are  otherwise.  There  are  no 
early  traces  of  any  such  traditions,  nor  is  there,  in  all 
Pentateuchal  literature,  nor  yet  in  that  of  the  pre-exilic 
prophets,  a  hint  that  there  existed  in  the  days  of  Moses 
or  immediately  afterwards  a  book  in  form,  structure  and 
teaching  answering  to  our  Pentateuch. 

That  Moses  wrote  certain  things  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch  is  affirmed  therein.  See  Exodus  xvii:  14; 
xxiv:  4-27;  Deuteronomy  xxxi:  9;  Joshua  i:  7-8;  viii:  31; 
Deuteronomy  xxxi:  22;  Numbers  xxxiii:  2.  From  these 
we  learn  that  Moses  wrote  a  memorial  against  Amale^; 
that  he  wrote  a  ''Book  of  the  Covenant;"  also  a  book 
of  laws,  a  song,  and  a  record  of  the  journeys  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel.  But  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  to  indicate 
that  he  compiled  all  these  writings  or  gave  to  them  the 
historic  setting  which  they  have  in  "The  Pentateuch."  The 
opposite  is  implied,  and,  but  for  the  traditions  in  question, 
no  one  could  doubt  that  the  compilers  of  the  Pentateuch 
made  use  of  the  reputed  writings  of  Moses  to  put  forth 
his  teachings  and  to  give  his  true  historic  position  in  the 
religion  and  government  of  Israel. 

Until  we  reach  the  days  of  Ezra  there  is  really  nothing 
in  the  Scriptures  that  throws  any  light  upon  the  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Even  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
give  nothing  conclusive. 

We  learn  from  these  two  books  (i)  that  in  the  year 
536  B.  C,  Zerubbabel,  together  with  the  priests,  builded 
the  altar  of  the  God  of  Israel  to  offer  burnt  offerings 
thereon,  *'as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man 
of  God." — Ezra  iii:  2.    (See  Deuteronomy  xxvii:  5,  6.) 


THE  PROGRESS   OF   CRITICISM.  ^^ 

(2)  We  learn  that  the  foundation  of  the  second 
temple  was  laid  in  the  same  year,  and  that  it  was  dedi- 
cated twenty  years  after  with  an  elaborate  ritual,  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zachariah  being  present;  and  we 
are  further  told  that  ''all  was  done  according  to  the  Law 
of  Moses ." 

(3)  We  learn  that  in  the  year  458  B.  C,  fifty-eight 
years  after  the  dedication  of  the  Temple,  Ezra,  "3.  ready 
scribe  in  the  Law,"  went  up  to  Jerusalem  armed  with  cer- 
tain powers  by  the  King  of  Babylon,  to  reform  what  he 
should  find  amiss;  but  he  seems  to  have  done  little  more 
than  separate  the  priests  and  people  from  their  "strange 
wives."  Ezra  does  not  appear  again  until  thirteen  years 
after,  when,  during  the  first  visit  of  Nehemiah,  he 
"brought  the  'Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,'  which  the 
Lord  commanded  Israel,  and  from  a  pulpit  of  wood  made 
for  the  purpose,"  read  it  to  the  standing  multitude;  and 
that  certain  helpers  caused  the  people  to  understand  the 
reading.    Nehemiah  viii:  1-18. 

Now,  although  the  people  had  been  worshipping  in 
their  restored  Temple  for  more  than  seventy-two  years, 
under  the  leadership  of  priests  and  prophets,  and  accord- 
ing to  a  law  book  which  they  called  "The  Law  of  Moses, 
the  Man  of  God"  (Ezra  iii:  2)  and  "The  Book  of  Moses" 
(Ezra  vi:  18),  yet  they  are  found  by  Ezra  to  be  totally 
ignorant  of  the  true  "Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,"  which 
he  brought  from  Babylon. 

This  new  book  contained  things  that  caused  the  peo- 
ple such  sorrow,  they  could  only  be  comforted  by  the 
earnest  persuasions  of  the  Levites. 

But  the  ordinance  that  seems  to  have  reconciled  them 
to  the  new  conditions  imposed  by  this  "Book  of  the  Law 
of  Moses"  was  the  law  for  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
(Nehemiah  viii:  14-17),  of  which  the  "Book  of  Moses" 
that  they  had  accepted  with  the  sanction  of  prophets  and 
priests  for  more  than  ninety  years,  was  without  a  trace ! 


36  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

Something  very  serious  had  happened.  The  long- 
honored  ''Law  of  Moses,"  which  seems  to  have  been  the 
composite  work  of  the  Yahvist,  the  Elohist,  and  the 
Deuteronomist,  by  the  new  movement  had  been  enlarged 
by  the  addition  of  a  code  of  Priestly  Laws,  which  were 
partly  the  development  of  the  Law  of  Ezekiel  (xliv: 
1 2- 1 6),  and  partly  a  compilation  of  ancient  Temple  usages 
and  other  priestly  traditions,  but  which  were  believed  by 
Ezra,  or  whoever  made  the  codification,  to  have  been 
authorized  by  Moses.  This  phase  of  the  subject  will  be 
treated  more  fully  later  on;  the  above  statement  is  made 
now  merely  to  show  that,  so  far  as  the  canonical  books 
are  concerned,  we  are  left  in  doubt  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

Turning  from  the  canonical  books  to  the  later  tradi- 
tions, we  find  nothing  reliable,  but  much  that  is  absurd 
and  unhistorical.  The  story  that  Ezra  was  inspired  to  re- 
write the  Law  of  Moses,  and  many  other  sacred  books, 
after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  as  given  in  the 
Apocrypha  (IL  Esdras  xiv:  i),  is  unworthy  of  serious 
consideration,  because  that  legend  arose  about  five  hun- 
dred years  after  Ezra,  and  is  contradictory  to  the  his- 
torical statements  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 
The  tradition  that  the  canon  of  Scriptures  was  settled  by 
Ezra  with  the  aid  of  the  Great  Synagogue  is  also  utterly 
without  historical  support.  "There  is  no  mention  of  the 
Great  Synagogue"  in  the  writings  of  either  Josephus  or 
Philo.  There  is  no  allusion  to  it  even  in  the  Apocrypha, 
nor  is  there  a  single  sentence  in  Nehemiah  that,  accord- 
ing to  any  literal  interpretation,  would  lead  a  reader  to 
suppose  that  Ezra  founded  an  important  deliberative  as- 
sembly, or  even  a  religious  college  or  synod. 

''The  earliest  evidence,  therefore,  is  that  supplied  by 
the  Mishnic  treatise,  Pirqe  Aboth,  which  may  have  been 
committed  to  writing  in  the  second  or  third  century, 


THE  PROGRESS   OF   CRITICISM.  3/ 

A.  D.  The  remainder  of  the  Talmudic  evidence  is  G4- 
mara,  and  not  Mishna,  and,  therefore,  was  probably  not 
committed  to  writing  earUer  than  the  sixth  or  seventh 
century,  A.  D.  There  is  no  evidence  from  any  hterary 
source  whatever  nearer  to  the  historical  period  to  which 
the  Great  Synagogue  is  assigned  than  Pirqe  Ahoth;  and 
all  that  the  testimony  of  Pirqe  Ahoth  amounts  to  is,  that 
in  the  chain  of  traditions  from  Moses  to  the  second  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  the  Great  Synagogue  intervened  be- 
tween the  Prophets  and  'the  Pairs'  of  Scribes,  and  that 
Simeon  the  Just  is  its  last  surviving  member." — The 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  H.  E.  Ryle,  p.  267. 

In  this  able  work  the  whole  subject  of  the  legend  of 
Ezra  and  the  books  of  Scripture  is  fully  presented  in  Ex- 
cursus A,  pp.  240-272. 

IV. 

THE  TESTIMONY   OF   CHRIST. 

It  is  insisted  by  traditionalists  that  the  failure  of  the 
testimony  of  the  canonical  books  and  of  tradition  to  set- 
tle, affirmatively,  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  not  fatal,  for  the  testimony  of  Christ  is  conclusive, 
and  ''you  must  choose  between  Christ  and  criticism." 
But  this  by  no  means  follows.  The  Pentateuch  was 
known  as  "the  Law"  and  "The  Law  of  Moses"  in  the  pop- 
ular speech  and  literature  of  the  day;  and  whatever  Christ 
may  have  known  of  the  history  of  its  composition.  He 
would  naturally  use  the  accepted  name.  To  have 
done  otherwise  would  have  defeated  his  object.  The 
critical  aspects  of  the  case  were  not  involved  in  anything  He 
said  or  did,  and,  therefore,  could  have  no  relation  to  the 
subject. 

"The  old  argument  against  the  higher  criticism,  from 
the  fact  that  Jesus  used  the  Old  Testament,  and  which 


38  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

assumes  that  if  Moses  had  not  written  the  Pentateuch, 
and  David  the  Psalms,  and  Solomon  Ecclesiastes — which 
takes  for  granted  that  if  the  traditional  view  that  if  the 
origin  and  composition  of  the  Hebrew  literature  had  not 
been  true,  Christ  would  have  told  his  disciples  so — is  self- 
evidently  worthless.  The  principle  of  the  Incarnation 
involves  an  accommodation  of  the  Eternal  to  temporal 
conditions;  and  it  was  clearly  beyond  even  the  power  of 
Divinity,  in  three  short  years,  to  sweep  the  Jewish  mind 
clear  of  all  errors  and  superstitions.  The  reserve  of 
Christ  in  dealing  with  an  age  at  all  points  so  immeasura- 
bly below  him  is  one  of  the  notes  of  his  surpassing  great- 
ness. *  *  *  He  was,  in  fact,  under  the  necessity  of 
introducing  his  original  and  absolute  teaching  in  the  cur- 
rent forms  of  thought,  which  were  frequently  unsatisfac- 
tory."— The  Christ  of  To-Day.    Gordon.    Pp.  156,  157. 

So  we  see  that  Christ  leaves  the  whole  question  of  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch  open,  and  the  reverent  critic 
may  enter  the  field  without  fearing  lest  he  be  trespassing 
upon  forbidden  ground.  He  is,  therefore,  as  free  to  dis- 
cuss the  history  of  the  first  Jewish  canon  of  Scripture  as 
is  the  Christian  geologist  to  discuss  the  origin  of  the 
world,  undeterred  by  the  book  of  Genesis.  Liberated  from 
the  misleading  and  paralyzing  influences  of  tradition, 
we,  therefore,  seek  by  critical  methods  the  sources  of  the 
Hexateuch,  the  process  of  its  composition,  and  the  sig- 
nificance of  its  inspiration. 


CHAPTER  II. 

SOME  OF  THE  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH. 

The  literary  form  of  the  books  of  the  Hexateuch  de- 
mands critical  readjustment,  the  radical  nature  of  which 
will  appear  when  we  consider  a  few  of  the  problems  that 
force  themselves  upon  our  attention. 

(i)  There  are  two  accounts  of  creation  given  in  Gene- 
sis i-ii:  4a,  and  ii:  4b-25.  In  the  first,  God  is  called  Elo- 
him,  and  in  the  second  Yahweh  Elohim.  According  to 
the  first,  man  is  created  after  all  the  animals,  while  ac- 
cording to  the  second  he  is  made  before  them, — the  order 
of  creation  being  inverted. 

(2)  There  are  varying  statements  in  the  account  of 
the  Deluge  as  to  the  beasts  to  be  taken  into  the  Ark  (vii). 
In  verse  2  Noah  is  directed  to  take  of  every  clean 
beast,  ''by  sevens,  male  and  his  female,  and  of  the  beasts 
that  are  not  clean  by  two,  male  and  his  female,  *  *  * 
and  Noah  did  according  to  all  that  Yahweh  commanded 

him."     But,  according  to  verseX  "©4~clea»-4^€a&t^-a«d    )5*.  ^  ^ 
0fH3^asts-that-are- TTot  t:lean     *     *     *     thetj^  went  in 
^\   ^two  and  two  unto  Noah  into  the  Arlg  \h£-jnaXa^AxuiJh£  ^,rtii-^4^ 
fettiaief  as  Elohim  te4  commanded  ^4ift4^."  k.«-^.n^  ^        ^ 

(3)  There  are  different  statements  as  to  the  duration 
of  the  Flood.  In  chapter  vii :  11  it  is  said  that  'Tn  the  six 
hundredth  year  of  Noah's  life,  in  the  second  month,  on 
the  seventeenth  day  of  the  month,  the  same  day  were  all 
the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  broken  up  and  the  win- 
dows of  heaven  were  opened."  And  in  viii:  13-16,  we  are 
told  "that  it  came  to  pass,  in  the  six  hundredth  and  first 
year,  in  the  first  month,  the  first  day  of  the  month,  the 

39 


40  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

waters  were  dried  from  off  the  earth;  and  Noah  removed 
the  covering  of  the  ark,  and  looked,  and,  behold,  the  face 
of  the  ground  was  dry.  And  in  the  second  month,  on  the 
seven  and  twentieth  day  of  the  month,  was  the  earth 
dried.  And  Elohim  spake  unto  Noah,  saying.  Go  forth 
of  the  ark,  thou,  and  thy  wife,  and  thy  sons,  and  thy  sons' 
wives  with  thee."  This  makes  the  duration  of  the  flood  to 
have  been  one  year;  whereas,  its  duration,  according  to 
the  sections  connected  with  the  name  of  Yahweh,  was 
much  less — vii:  12:  'Tt  rained  forty  days  and  forty 
nights;"  verse  17:  "The  flood  was  upon  the  earth  forty 
days."  Viii:  10:  After  sending  out  the  dove,  Noah  re- 
mained other  seven  days;  when  he  sent  the  dove  again 
and  when  she  returned,  bringing  the  olive  leaf  (verse  11), 
hi  staid  yet  other  seven  days.  Then,  he  sent  forth  the 
dove  for  the  last  time.  Verse  20:  "And  Noah  buildeth 
an  altar  unto  Yahweh,"  etc.  The  number  of  days  here 
given  from  the  beginning  of  the  rain  to  the  drying  of  the 
earth  is  only  one  hundred  and  one. 

(4J  Three  versions  are  given  in  Genesis  of  the  story 
of  wife  denial  by  Abraham  and  Isaac,  (i)  By  Abraham 
in  Egypt,  (2)  by  him  in  Gerar,  and  (3)  by  Isaac  in  Gerar 
eighty  years  after.  These  versions  are  all  cast  in  the  same 
mould.  Did  these  events  so  repeat  themselves  or  are 
they  different  versions  of  one  experience? 

(5)  In  the  story  of  Joseph  and  his  brethern  there  are 
two  widely  differing  statements,  (i)  Joseph  is  sold  by 
his  brethren  to  the  Ishmaelites  for  twenty  pieces  of  silver 
(xxxvii:  28),  who,  in  turn,  sold  him  in  Egypt  (xxxix:  i). 
(2)  The  Midianites  drew  Joseph  from  the  pit  into  which 
his  brethren  had  put  him,  and,  carrying  him  to  Egypt, 
sold  him  to  Potiphar  (xxxvii:  36). 

(6)  The  revelation  of  the  divine  name  of  Yahweh  to 
Moses  (i)  at  the  burning  bush  (iii:  14);  (2)  a  revelation 
in  Egypt,  like  the  original  one  (vi:  3). 


SOME  OF  THE  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH.         4I 

(7)  The  two  widely  different  recensions  of  the  Com- 
mandments: (i)  Exodus  XX :  1-17,  well-known  to  the 
Church;  (2)  xxxiv:  10-28,  almost  unknown.  The  first  re- 
cension is  said  to  have  been  spoken  by  Elohim  from  the 
Mount,  and,  according  to  Deuteronomy,  it  contained  the 
Commandments  that  were  written  by  God  upon  tables 
of  stone  (Deuteronomy  V:  7-22).  But  the  latter  was 
spoken  to  Moses,  after  the  breaking  of  the  first  tables  (as 
a  repetition  of  the  words  of  that  table,  xxxi:  i),  and  these 
Moses  was  to  write  upon  tables  prepared  by  him  (xxxiv: 
27,  28).  "And  Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  then 
these  words  (xxxiv:  10-26),  for  after  the  tenor  of  these 
words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and  with  Israel; 
and  he  was  with  Yahweh  forty  days  and  forty  nights;  he 
did  neither  eat  bread  nor  drink  water.  And  he  wrote 
upon  the  tables  of  the  covenant  the  ten  commandments." 
All  former  attempts  to  harmonize  these  conflicting  facts 
with  the  theory  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  both  having 
failed,  the  Higher  Criticism  unhesitatingly  declares  that 
in  these  two  chapters  we  have  extracts  from  two  different 
literary  sources,  xx:  1-2 1  being  from  the  Elohistic  and 
xxxiv:  1-28  from  the  Yahvistic  documents. 

The  responsibility  for  this  confusion  rests  upon  the 
compiler,  who  has  introduced  widely  different  traditions 
of  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  substance  of  the  former 
being  religious  and  ethical,  and  that  of  the  latter  mainly 
religious,  secular  and  ceremonial.  To  make  Moses  the 
author  of  both  these  accounts  is  impossible.  (See  a  third 
version  in  Deuteronomy  v,  with  variations  from  that  in 
Exodus  XX.) 

(8)  The  laws  for  altars  and  worship  proclaimed  at 
Sinai  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  statement  that  Moses 
formulated  them  then  and  there,  and  that  he  wrote  the  ac- 
count of  their  institution  as  we  have  it.  In  xx:  24-25: 
"An  altar  shalt  thou  make  unto  me,  and  shalt  sacrifice 


42  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

thereon  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  thy  peace  offerings,  thy 
sheep  and  thine  oxen;  in  all  places  where  I  record  my 
name  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  bless  thee.  If  thou  wilt 
make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not  build  it  of  hewn 
stone:  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  thou  hast  pol- 
luted it." 

Exodus  xxvii:  i :  'Thou  shalt  make  an  altar  of  shittim 
wood,  five  cubits  long  and  five  cubits  broad;  the  altar 
shall  be  foursquare;  and  the  height  thereof  shall  be 
three  cubits,"  etc.  Exodus  xl:  6:  "Thou  shalt  set  the 
altar  of  the  burnt  offerings  before  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  tent  of  the  congregation."  Leviticus  xvii: 
1-9,  makes  this  altar  exclusive;  sacrifices  could  be  offered 
upon  it  only,  and,  according  to  Numbers  iii:  i-io,  only 
Aaron  and  his  sons  could  make  the  offerings. 

(9)  Genesis  xxxviii  has  no  connection  with  the  con- 
text before  or  after  it,  being  a  story  of  Judah  and  certain 
of  his  impurities,  etc.,  which  was  thrust  into  the  story  of 
Joseph,  thus  separating  the  statement  that  the  Midianites 
sold  Joseph  in  Egypt,  xxxvii:  36,  from  the  statement, 
xxxix:  I,  that  the  Ishmaelites  did  it. 

(10)  Exodus  xxv-xxx,  containing  the  first  section  of 
the  tabernacle  legislation,  is  out  of  place,  having  been  ar- 
bitrarily put  between  the  account  of  the  first  ascent  of 
Moses  into  the  Mount,  xxiv,  and  his  return  with  the 
tables  of  stone,  xxxii.  Clearly  the  original  form  of  the 
record  was  as  follows:  "And  Moses  rose  up,  and  his  min- 
ister Joshua;  and  Moses  went  up  into  the  Mount  of  God 
(xxiv:  13),  and  Moses  was  in  the  Alount  of  God  forty 
days  and  forty  nights  (verse  18).  And  when  the  people 
saw  that  Moses  delayed  to  come  down  from  the  Mount, 
the  people  gathered  themselves  together  unto  Aaron  and 
said  unto  him:  Up,  make  us  gods  which  shall  go  before 
us;  for  as  for  this  Moses,  the  man  that  brought  us  up  out 
of   the   land  of  Egypt,  we  know  not  what  is  become  of 


SOME  OF  THE  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH.         43 

him"  (xxxii:  i).  From  this  point  on  to  xxxiv:  28  is  given 
the  history  of  the  golden  calf;  the  punishment  of  the  peo- 
ple for  their  idolatry;  the  second  ascent  of  Moses  with 
tables  of  stone,  prepared  by  him,  his  writing  thereon, 
the  Ten  Commandments  of  the  covenant,  and  his  return 
and  publication  of  them  as  contained  in  xxxiv:  12-27. 
The  two  sections  of  the  tabernacle  legislation,  xxv-xxx 
and  xxxv-xl,  must  have  been  published  after  the  transac- 
tions concerning  the  tables  of  stone,  and  their  true  place 
in  the  narrative  would  have  been  together  at  the  end  of 
the  book.  As  it  is,  we  sec  plainly  the  marks  of  the  com- 
positor. 

(11)  From  the  death  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of  King 
Josiah,  a  period  of  six  hundred  years,  nothing  is  said  of 
the  law  of  one  altar  in  the  historical  books  of  Judges,  Sam- 
uel and  Kings.  The  publication  of  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy 621  B.  C.  is  the  first  appearance  of  such  a  law 
outside  of  the  Hexateuch.  The  prophets  and  kings  are 
alike  ignorant  of  its  existence,  and  personally,  by  exam- 
ple, encourage  worship  in  the  sacred  places.  Samuel, 
David  and  Solomon  offer  sacrifices  in  many  places.  Eli- 
jah complains  that  the  enemies  of  Yahweh  had  thrown 
down  his  altars.  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah  and  Micah  give 
no  hint  of  the  existence  of  the  law  of  one  exclusive  altar. 
It  is  only  after  the  reign  of  Josiah,  who  established  the 
one  altar,  that  we  find  in  the  closing  chapters  of  II  Kings 
indications  of  a  centralized  worship. 

(12)  Following  this  inexplicable  condition  of  the 
Jewish  literature,  if  the  traditional  theory  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch  is  accepted,  comes  the  yet  stranger 
fact  that  there  is  no  notice,  outside  of  the  Pentateuch,  of 
the  exclusive  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  until 
Ezekiel.  To  him  is  due  the  law  excluding  the  Levites 
from  the  priesthood  in  punishment  for  their  defection 
before  the  exile,  xliv:  12-16.    Of  the  influence  of  Ezekiel's 


44  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

law  in  developing  the  laws  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  I 
will  speak  when  I  come  to  consider  the  priests'  code. 

(13)  It  is  stated  in  the  book  of  Joshua  that  the  whole 
land  had  been  conquered  before  Joshua's  death.  But,  in 
the  first  part  of  the  book  of  Judges,  we  find  that  new  mili- 
tary combinations  had  to  be  made  to  enable  the  various 
tribes  to  subdue  their  enemies  and  secure  possession  of 
their  allotments.  The  complete  subjugation  of  the  land 
did  not  take  place  until  the  days  of  David. 

The  above  is  a  brief  outline  of  a  few  of  the  many  lit- 
erary phenomena  in  the  Hexateuch  demanding  explana- 
tion. All  efforts  to  do  this  upon  the  assumption  that 
Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  have  been  sad  failures.  The 
conditions  require  a  new  treatment  which  the  Higher 
Criticism  claims  to  be  able  to  give  successfully.  It 
shows  that  the  discrepancies  and  variations,  together  with 
misplacement  of  much  of  the  text,  arose  mainly  from 
efforts  to  create  a  composite  w^ork  by  joining  together 
parts  of  four  documents.  These  documents  were  written 
in  different  places,  at  widely-separated  periods,  and  for 
various  purposes.  To  demonstrate  this  composite  char- 
acter of  the  Hexateuch,  the  critics  analyze  it  into  its  older 
sources  by  collecting  the  scattered  parts  of  the  documents 
from  their  composite  setting  and  restoring  the  original 
documents  more  or  less  completely  to  their  proper  form. 
Examples  of  this  critical  analysis  I  now  proceed  to  give. 


CHAPTER  III. 

SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 
Priests'  Code,  or  P.  Yahvist,  or  J. 

GENESIS.  GENESIS. 


CHAPTER   I. 

Creation  of  Heaven  and  Earth. 

1  In  the  beginning  Elohim 
created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth. 

2  And  the  earth  was  without 
form,  and  void;  and  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep. 
And  the  Spirit  of  Elohim 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters. 

3  And  Elohim  said.  Let 
there  be  light:  and  there  was 
light. 

4  And  Elohim  saw  the  light, 
that  it  was  good:  and  Elohim 
divided  the  light  from  the 
darkness. 

5  And  Elohim  called  the 
light  Day,  and  the  darkness  he 
called  Night.  And  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning  were  the 
first  day. 

6  And  Elohim  said,  Let 
there  be  a  firmament  in  the 
midst  of  the  waters,  and  let  it 
divide  the  waters  from  the 
waters. 


CHAPTER    II. 

4  In  the  day  that  Yahweh 
Elohim  made  the  earth  and 
the  heavens. 

5  And  every  plant  of  the 
field  before  it  was  in  the  earth, 
and  every  herb  of  the  field  be- 
fore it  grew:  for  Yahweh  Elo- 
him had  not  caused  it  to  rain 
upon  the  earth,  and  there  was 
not  a  man  to  till  the  ground. 

6  But  there  went  up  a  mist 
from  the  earth,  and  watered 
the  whole  face  of  the  ground. 

7  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and 
man  became  a  living  soul. 

8  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
planted  a  garden  eastward  in 
Eden;  and  there  he  put  the 
man  whom  he  had  formed. 

9  And  out  of  the  ground 
made  Yahweh  Elohim  to  grow 
every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to 
the  sight  and  good  for  food; 
the   tree    of    life    also    in    the 


45 


46 


REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


7  And  Elohim  made  the  fir- 
mament, and  divided  the 
waters  which  were  under  the 
firmament  from  the  waters 
which  were  above  the  firma- 
ment: and  it  was  so. 

8  And  Elohim  called  the  fir- 
mament Heaven.  And  the 
evening  and  the  morning  were 
the  second  day. 

9  And  Elohim  said,  Let  the 
waters  under  the  heaven  be 
gathered  together  unto  one 
place,  and  let  the  dry  land  ap- 
pear: and  it  was  so. 

ID  And  Elohim  called  the 
dry  land  Earth;  and  the  gath- 
ering together  of  the  waters 
called  he  Seas:  and  Elohim 
saw  that  it  was  good. 

11  And  Elohim  said,  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  the 
herb  yielding  seed,  and  the 
fruit  tree  yielding  fruit  after 
his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  it- 
self, upon  the  earth:  and  it 
was  so. 

12  And  the  earth  brought 
forth  grass,  and  herb  yielding 
seed  after  his  kind,  and  the 
tree  yielding  fruit,  whose  seed 
was  in  itself,  after  his  kind: 
and  Elohim  saw  that  it  was 
good. 

13  And  the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  third  day. 

14  And  Elohim  said.  Let 
there  be  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment of  the  heaven  to  divide 
the  day  from  the  night;  and 
let  them  be  for  signs,  and  for 
seasons,  and  for  days,  and 
years : 


midst  of  the  garden,  and  the 
tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil. 

10  And  a  river  went  out  of 
Eden  to  water  the  garden;  and 
from  thence  it  was  parted,  and 
became  into  four  heads. 

11  The  name  of  the  first  is 
Pison:  that  is  it  which  com- 
passeth  the  whole  land  of 
Havilah,  where  there  is  gold. 

12  And  the  gold  of  that 
land  is  good:  there  is  bdellium 
and  the  onyx  stone. 

13  And  the  name  of  the 
second  river  is  Gihon:  the 
same  is  it  that  compasseth  the 
whole  land  of  Ethiopia. 

14  And  the  name  of  the 
third  river  is  Hidekel:  that  is 
it  which  goeth  toward  the  east 
of  Assyria.  And  the  fourth 
river  is  Euphrates. 

15  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
took  the  man,  and  put  him  in 
the  garden  of  Eden  to  dress  it 
and  to  keep  it. 

16  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
commanded  the  man,  saying. 
Of  every  tree  of  the  garden 
thou  mayest  freely  eat: 

17  But  of  the  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil, 
thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it:  for 
in  the  day  that  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die. 

18  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
said,  It  is  not  good  that  the 
man  should  be  alone;  I  will 
make  him  an  help  meet  for 
him. 

19  And  out  of  the  ground 
Yahweh  Elohim  formed  every 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


47 


15  And  let  them  be  for 
lights  in  the  firmament  of  the 
heaven  to  give  light  upon  the 
earth:  and  it  was  so. 

16  And  Elohim  made  two 
great  lights;  the  greater  light 
to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser 
light  to  rule  the  night:  he 
made  the  stars  also. 

17  And  Elohim  set  them  in 
the  firmament  of  the  heaven 
to  give  light  upon  the  earth. 

18  And  to  rule  over  the  day 
and  over  the  night,  and  to  di- 
vide the  light  from  the  dark- 
ness: and  Elohim  saw  that  it 
was  good. 

19  And  the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  fourth  day. 

20  And  Elohim  said,  Let  the 
waters  bring  forth  abundantly 
the  moving  creature  that  hath 
life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly 
above  the  earth  in  the  open 
firmament  of  heaven. 

21  And  Elohim  created 
great  whales,  and  every  living 
creature  that  moveth,  which 
the  waters  brought  forth 
abundantly,  after  their  kind, 
and  every  winged  fowl  after 
his  kind:  and  Elohim  saw  that 
it  was  good. 

22  And  Elohim  blessed 
them,  saying.  Be  fruitful,  and 
multiply  and  fill  the  waters  in 
the  seas,  and  let  the  fowl  mul- 
tiply in  earth. 

23  And  the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  fifth  day. 

24  And  Elohim  said.  Let  the 
earth    bring    forth    the    living 


beast  of  the  field,  and  every 
fowl  of  the  air;  and  brought 
them  unto  Adam  to  see  what 
he  would  call  them:  and  what- 
soever Adam  called  every 
living  creature,  that  was  the 
name  thereof. 

20  And  Adam  gave  names  to 
all  cattle,  and  to  the  fowl  of 
the  air,  and  to  every  beast  of 
the  field;  but  for  Adam  there 
was  not  found  an  help  meet 
for  him. 

21  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall 
upon  Adam,  and  he  slept;  and 
he  took  one  of  his  ribs,  and 
closed  up  the  flesh  instead 
thereof. 

22  And  the  rib,  which  Yah- 
weh Elohim  had  taken  from 
man,  made  he  a  woman,  and 
brought  her  unto  the  man. 

23  And  Adam  said,  This  is 
now  bone  of  my  bone,  and 
flesh  of  my  flesh:  she  shall  be 
called  Woman,  because  she 
was  taken  out  of  man. 

24  Therefore  shall  a  man 
leave  his  father  and  his 
mother,  and  shall  cleave  unto 
his  wife;  and  they  shall  be  one 
flesh. 

25  And  they  were  both 
naked,  the  man  and  his  wife, 
and  were  not  ashamed. 

CHAPTER  III. 

I  Now  the  serpent  was  more 
subtle  than  any  beast  of  the 
field  which  Yahweh  Elohim 
had  made.    And  he  said  unto 


48 


REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 


creature  after  his  kind,  cattle, 
and  creeping  thing,  and  beast 
of  the  earth  after  his  kind:  and 
it  was  so. 

25  And  Elohim  made  the 
beast  of  the  earth  after  his 
kind,  and  cattle  after  their 
kind,  and  everything  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth  after 
his  kind:  and  Elohim  saw  that 
it  was  good. 

26  And  Elohim  said,  Let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image, 
after  our  likeness:  and  let 
them  have  dominion  over  the 
fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the 
cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth, 
and  over  every  creeping  thing 
that  creepeth  upon  the  earth. 

27  So  Elohim  created  man 
in  his  own  image,  in  the  image 
of  Elohim  created  he  him: 
male  and  female  created  he 
them. 

28  And  Elohim  blessed 
them,  and  Elohim  said  unto 
them,  Be  fruitful,  and  multiply, 
and  replenish  the  earth,  and 
subdue  it:  and  have  dominion 
over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and 
over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
over  every  living  thing  that 
moveth  upon  the  earth. 

29  And  Elohim  said.  Be- 
hold, I  have  given  you  every 
herb  bearing  seed,  which  is 
upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth, 
and  every  tree,  in  which  is  the 
fruit  of  a  tree  yielding  seed; 
to  you  it  shall  be  for  meat. 


the  woman.  Yea,  hath  Elohim 
said,  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  every 
tree  of  the  garden? 

2  And  the  woman  said  unto 
the  serpent,  We  may  eat  of 
the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the 
garden: 

3  But  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree 
which  is  in  the  midst  of  the 
garden,  Elohim  hath  said.  Ye 
shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall 
ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die. 

4  And  the  serpent  said  unto 
the  woman.  Ye  shall  not 
surely  die: 

5  For  Elohim  doth  know 
that  in  the  day  ye  eat  thereof, 
then  your  eyes  shall  be 
opened,  and  ye  shall  be  as 
Elohims,  knowing  good  and 
evil. 

6  And  when  the  woman  saw 
that  the  tree  was  good  for 
food,  and  that  it  was  pleasant 
to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be 
desired  to  make  one  wise,  she 
took  of  the  fruit  thereof,  and 
did  eat,  and  gave  also  unto  her 
husband  with  her;  and  he  did 
eat. 

7  And  the  eyes  of  them  both 
were  opened,  and  they  knew 
that  they  were  naked;  and  they 
sewed  fig  leaves  together,  and 
made  themselves  aprons. 

8  And  they  heard  the  voice 
of  Yahweh  Elohim  walking  in 
the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the 
day:  and  Adam  and  his  wife 
hid  themselves  from  the  pres- 
ence     of      Yahweh      Elohim 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


49 


30  And  to  every  beast  of  the 
earth,  and  to  every  fowl  of  the 
air,  and  to  every  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth, 
wherein  there  is  Hfe,  I  have 
given  every  green  herb  for 
meat:  and  it  was  so. 

31  And  Elohim  saw  every 
thing  that  he  had  made,  and, 
behold,  it  was  very  good. 
And  the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  sixth  day. 

CHAPTER    II. 

1  Thus  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  were  finished,  and  all  the 
host  of  them. 

2  And  on  the  seventh  day 
Elohim  ended  his  work  which 
he  had  made;  and  he  rested  on 
the  seventh  day  from  all  his 
work  which  he  had  made. 

3  And  Elohim  blessed  the 
seventh  day  and  sanctified  it: 
because  that  in  it  he  had  rested 
from  all  his  work  which 
Elohim  created  and  made. 

4  These  arc  the  generations 
of  the  heavens  and  of  the 
earth  when  they  were  created. 


amongst  the  trees  of  the  gar- 
den. 

9  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
called  unto  Adam,  and  said 
unto  him.  Where  art  thou? 

ID  And  he  said,  I  heard  thy 
voice  in  the  garden,  and  I  was 
afraid,  because  I  was  naked; 
and  I  hid  myself. 

11  And  he  said.  Who  told 
thee  that  thou  wast  naked? 
Hast  thou  eaten  of  the  tree, 
whereof  I  commanded  thee 
thou  shouldest  not  eat? 

12  And  the  man  said,  The 
woman  whom  thou  gavest  to 
be  with  me,  she  gave  me  of  the 
tree,  and  I  did  eat. 

13  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
said  unto  the  woman,  What  is 
this  that  thou  hast  done?  And 
the  woman  said,  The  serpent 
beguiled  me,  and  I  did  eat. 

14  And  Yahweh  Elohim 
said  unto  the  serpent,  Because 
thou  hast  done  this,  thou  art 
cursed  above  all  cattle,  and 
above  every  beast  of  the  field; 
upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou  go, 
and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the 
days  of  thy  life. 


And  so  on  to  verse  24. 
A  critical  examination  discloses  marked  differences 
in  these  accounts  of  the  creation.    The  first  (the  Priestly 
account)  names  the  creator  Elohim,  and  is  almost  free   p 
f^«i  anthropomorphic  representations  of  God.    It  repre-  fptt^f^ 
sents  Elohim  as  doing  all  things  spontaneously,  by  the 
power  of  his  word.    He  speaks  and  it  is  done.    He  com- 
mands and  it  stands  fast.     He  says,  "Let  there  be  light 
and  there  is  light,"  "Let  there  be  a  firmament,"  etc.,  "Let 


50  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

the  earth  bring  forth,"  etc.,  "Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image  and  after  our  likeness,"  etc. 

It  is  after  this  subhme  fashion  that  the  "Priests'  Code" 
represents  God  as  creating  the  universe.  It  is  far  above 
and  outside  of  all  human  analogies;  and  is  in  harmony 
with  the  highest  ideal  of  theism  that  the  most  spiritual 
civilization  has  yet  attained.  The  Infinite  and  Omnis- 
cient One  is  emphasized  in  it  as  he  is  nowhere  else  in  the 
early  religious  literature  of  the  world. 

The  second  (the  Jahvistic)  account  is  in  all  these  re- 
spects dififerent,  and  so  radically  dififerent  that  it  is  impos- 
sible, on  any  principle  of  criticism,  to  assign  it  to  the 
same  writer.  In  the  first  place,  it  begins  without  a  hint 
that  an  account  of  creation  had  just  been  given  covering 
six  days  of  divine  work,  an  account  which  this  second 
narrative  is,  in  a  measure,  to  duplicate  and  expand;  but 
it  begins  ab  initio.  "In  the  day  that  Yahweh  Elohim 
made  the  earth  and  the  heavens." 

In  the  second  place,  the  order  of  creation  is  different 
from  the  Priestly  account,  in  which  man  was  created  after 
all  other  animals;  while  in  this,  the  Yahvistic  document, 
he  is  created  before  them,  and  the  woman  is  created  last, 
because  there  is  found  no  helpmeet  for  man  among  them. 

In  the  third  place,  the  creation  proceeds  after  a  purely 
anthropomorphic  method,  its  processes  being  all  mechan- 
ical. Yahweh  forms  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathes  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life.  He  plants 
a  garden  and  places  man  in  it,  giving  him  orders  con- 
cerning his  food.  He  puts  him  into  a  deep  sleep,  and, 
taking  a  rib  from  his  side,  he  makes  of  it  a  woman  and 
brings  her  to  the  man. 

He  walks  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day  and  calls 
the  hiding  Adam  and  Eve  to  answer  for  their  transgres- 
sion. He  arraigns  them  before  him  after  the  fashion  of 
a  judge,  and  gives  them  formal  trial,  and  pronounces 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


51 


judgment  of  condemnation  upon  them;  and  drives  them 
from  the  garden,  placing  guards  to  prevent  their  return. 
A  more  complete  anthropomorphic  representation  of  God 
it  would  be  hard  to  find  in  any  literature,  and  a  more 
striking  contrast  with  the  first  (Priests'  Code)  account 
could  not  easily  be  imagined.  All  this,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  sudden  introduction  of  the  special  divine 
name,  Yahweh,  the  startling  change  of  style,  the  evident 
deflection  of  purpose  and  change  of  literary  plan,  show 
conclusively  the  work  of  a  different  hand  from  that  which 
gave  the  Priestly  account. 

Following  on,  we  find  in  the  history  of  the  Flood  the 
same  general  feature  of  difference,  in  two  accounts  there 
joined  into  one. 

J.  P. 


GENESIS  VII,   1-5. 

1  And  Yahweh  said  unto 
Noah,  Come  thou  and  all  thy 
house  into  the  ark;  for  thee 
have  I  seen  righteous  before 
me  in  this  generation. 

2  Of  every  clean  beast  thou 
shalt  take  to  thee  by  sevens, 
the  male  and  his  female:  and 
of  beasts  that  are  not  clean 
by  two,  the  male  and  his 
female. 

3  Of  fowls  also  of  the  air  by 
sevens,  the  male  and  the 
female;  to  keep  seed  alive 
upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth. 

4  For  yet  seven  days,  and  I 
will  cause  it  to  rain  upon  the 
earth  forty  days  and  forty 
nights;  and  every  living  sub- 
stance that  I  have  made  will 
I  destroy  from  off  the  face  of 
the  earth. 


GENESIS  VII,  13-16. 

13  In  the  selfsame  day  en- 
tered Noah,  and  Shem,  and 
Ham,  and  Japheth,  the  sons  of 
Noah,  and  Noah's  wife,  and 
the  three  wives  of  his  sons 
with  them,  into  the  ark. 

14  They,  and  every  beast 
after  his  kind,  and  all  the 
cattle  after  their  kind,  and 
every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth  after 
his  kind,  and  every  fowl  after 
his  kind,  and  every  bird  of 
every  sort. 

15  And  they  went  in  unto 
Noah  into  the  ark,  two  and 
two  of  all  flesh,  wherein  is  the 
breath  of  life. 

16  And  they  that  went  in, 
went  in  male  and  female  of  all 
flesh,  as  Elohim  had  com- 
manded him. 


52  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

5  And  Noah  did  according 
unto  all  that  Yahweh  com- 
manded him. 

The  first  (Yahvlstic)  says  that  Yahweh  commanded 
Noah  to  take  into  the  ark  clean  beasts  by  sevens,  male 
and  female,  and  beasts  that  were  not  clean  by  twos,  the 
male  and  his  female;  whereas  the  second  (Priests'  Code) 
says  that  two  of  every  kind  went  in  unto  Noah  in  the  ark. 
''Two  and  two  of  all  flesh  w^herein  is  the  breath  of  life," 
and  "they  that  went  in  were  male  and  female  of  all  flesh, 
as  Elohim  had  commanded  him,"  taking  no  notice  of  any 
distinction  between  clean  and  unclean  beasts.  The  first  ac- 
count says  that  Noah  did  as  Yahweh  commanded  him, 
and  the  second  that  he  did  what  Elohim  commanded 
him.  This  literary  condition  could  have  arisen  only  in 
one  way,  to  wit:  by  combining  into  one  the  products  of 
two  different  authors. 

When  we  reach  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  we  begin  to  meet  the  traces  of  another  document 
in  which  the  word  Elohim  is  used  for  God,  but  in  gen- 
eral style  and  form  is  very  different  from  the  "Priests' 
Code,"  and  is  closely  akin  to  the  Jahvistic  document. 
When  we  reach  the  xxxvii  chapter,  this  document  takes 
notable  place  in  the  account  of  Joseph's  trials  and  his 
deportation  to  Egypt. 

The  two  accounts  which  follow  have  been  ingeniously 
mingled,  so  as  to  m.ake  one  story,  but  can  easily  be  re- 
stored to  their  original  form,  and,  in  spite  of  some  omis- 
sions, made  necessary  by  the  work  of  joining  them,  will 
appear  in  their  ancient  integrity. 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


53 


E. 


CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

13  And  Israel  said  unto 
Joseph,  Do  not  thy  brethren 
feed  the  flock  in  Shechem? 
come,  and  I  will  send  thee 
unto  them.  And  he  said  to 
him,  Here  am  I. 

14  And  he  said  to  him,  Go, 
I  pray  thee,  see  whether  it  will 
be  well  with  thy  brethren,  and 
well  with  the  flocks;  and  bring 
me  word  again.  So  he  sent 
him  out  of  the  vale  of  Hebron, 
and  he  came  to  Shechem. 

15  And  a  certain  man  found 
him,  and,  behold,  he  was  wan- 
dering in  the  field:  and  the 
man  asked  him,  saying.  What 
seekest  thou? 

16  And  he  said,  I  seek  my 
brethren:  tell  me,  I  pray  thee, 
where  they  feed  their  flocks. 

17  And  the  man  said,  They 
are  departed  hence;  for  I 
heard  them  say,  Let  us  go  to 
Dothan.  And  Joseph  went 
after  his  brethren,  and  found 
them  in  Dothan. 

18  And  when  they  saw  him 
afar  ofif,  even  before  he  came 
near  unto  them,  they  conspired 
against  him  to  slay  him. 

19  And  they  said  one  to  an- 
other, Behold,  this  dreamer 
Cometh. 

20  Come  now  therefore,  and 
let  us  slay  him,  and  cast  him 
into  some  pit,  and  we  will  say. 
Some  evil  beast  hath  devoured 
him;  and  we  shall  see  what 
will  become  of  his  dreams. 


CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

22  And  Reuben  said  unto 
them.  Shed  no  blood,  but  cast 
him  into  this  pit  that  is  in  the 
wilderness,  and  lay  no  hand 
upon  him;  that  he  might  rid 
him  out  of  their  hands,  to  de- 
liver him  to  his  father  again. 

23  And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
Joseph  was  come  unto  his 
brethren,  that  they  stripped 
Joseph  out  of  his  coat,  his  coat 
of  many  colours  that  was  on 
him; 

24  And  they  took  him,  and 
cast  him  into  a  pit;  and  the  pit 
was  empty,  there  was  no  water 
in  it. 

25  And  they  sat  down  to  eat 
bread: 


28  Then  there  passed  by 
Midianites  merchantmen;  and 
they  drew  and  lifted  up  Joseph 
out  of  the  pit.     *    *    * 

29  And  Reuben  returned 
unto  the  pit;  and,  behold, 
Joseph  was  not  in  the  pit;  and 
he  rent  his  clothes. 

30  And  he  returned  unto  his 
brethren,  and  said.  The  child 
is  not;  and  I,  whither  shall  I 
go? 

36  And  the  Midianites  sold 
him  into  Egypt  unto  Potiphar, 
an  officer  of  Pharaoh's,  and 
captain  of  the  guard. 


54  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

21  And  Reuben  heard  it,  and 
he  delivered  him  out  of  their 
hands;  and  said,  Let  us  not 
kill  him, 

25  *  *  *  And  they  lifted 
up  their  eyes  and  looked,  and, 
behold,  a  company  of  Ishmae- 
lites  came  from  Gilead,  with 
their  camels  bearing  spicery 
and  balm  and  myrrh,  going  to 
carry  it  down  to  Egypt. 

26  And  Judah  said  unto  his 
brethren,  What  profit  is  it  if 
we  slay  our  brother,  and  con- 
ceal his  blood? 

27  Come,  and  let  us  sell  him 
to  the  Ishmaelites,  and  let  not 
our  hand  be  upon  him;  for  he 
is  our  brother  and  our  flesh: 
and  his  brethren  were  content. 

28  *  *  *  And  sold  Joseph 
to  the  Ishmaelites  for  twenty 
pieces  of  silver:  and  they 
brought  Joseph  into  Egypt. 

31  And  they  took  Joseph's 
coat,  and  killed  a  kid  of  the 
goats,  and  dipped  the  coat  in 
the  blood; 

32  And  they  sent  the  coat  of 
many  colours,  and  they  brought 
it  to  their  father;  and  said, 
This  have  we  found;  know 
now  whether  it  be  thy  son's 
coat  or  no. 

SS  And  he  knew  it,  and  said. 
It  is  my  son's  coat;  an  evil 
beast  hath  devoured  him; 
Joseph  is  without  doubt  rent 
in  pieces. 

34  And  Jacob  rent  his 
clothes,     and     put     sackcloth 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS.  55 

upon  his   loins,   and   mourned 
for  his  son  many  days. 

35  And  all  his  sons  and  all 
his  daughters  rose  up  to  com- 
fort him;  but  he  refused  to  be 
comforted;  and  he  said,  For  I 
will  go  down  into  the  grave 
unto  my  son  mourning.  Thus 
his  father  wept  for  him. 

Chapter  xxxviii,  concerning  Judah  and  his  family  and 
their  impurities,  has  been  here  thrust  in  by  a  compositor 
to  separate  the  thirty-sixth  verse  of  chapter  xxxvii  from 
the  first  verse  of  chapter  xxxix. 

''And  Joseph  was  brought  down  to  Egypt;  and  Poti- 
phar,  an  of^cer  of  Pharaoh,  captain  of  the  guard,  an 
Egyptian,  bought  him  of  the  hands  of  the  Ishmaelites, 
which  had  brought  him  down  thither." 

In  E.  the  first  part  of  the  story  has  been  omitted  and 
J.'s  account  preferred,  but  what  is  left  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent. Reuben,  seeking  to  deliver  Joseph,  had  him  put 
into  a  pit,  and,  while  his  brethren  were  eating,  the  Mid- 
ianites  stole  him  from  the  pit,  and  carried  him  to  Egypt 
and  sold  him  to  Potiphar. 

In  J.,  Reuben  advised  his  brethren  not  to  kill  Joseph, 
and  Judah  counselled  them  to  sell  him  to  a  passing  com- 
pany of  Ishmaelites;  so  they  sold  him  for  twenty  pieces  of 
silver,  and  the  Ishmaelites  brought  him  to  Egypt  and 
sold  him  to  an  Egyptian. 

These  accounts  are  so  plainly  from  different  sources 
that  no  comment  is  needed;  but  there  is  one  thing  to  be 
noted  that  throws  much  light  upon  the  work  of  the  com- 
piler, to  wit:  He  placed  J.'s  account  of  the  sale  of  Joseph 
in  Egypt  by  the  Ishmaelites  at  the  beginning  of  chapter 
xxxix,  thus  putting  a  whole  chapter  between  that  and 
E.'s  statement  at  the  close  of  chapter  xxxvii,  that  the 
Midianites  sold  him,  after  having  carried  him  to  Egypt, 
to  Potiphar,  the  captain  of  Pharaoh's  guard. 


56 


REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


E. 

CHAP.  XXXIII,  7-17. 

7  And  Moses  took  the 
tabernacle,  and  pitched 
it  without  the  camp,  afar 
off  from  the  camp,  and 
called  it  the  Tabernacle 
of  the  congregation. 
And  it  came  to  pass, 
that  every  one  which 
sought  the  Lord  went 
out  unto  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation, 
which  was  without  the 
camp. 

8  And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  Moses  went  out 
unto  the  tabernacle, 
that  all  the  people  rose 
up,  and  stood  every  man 
at  his  tent  door,  and 
looked  after  Moses,  un- 
til he  was  gone  into  the 
tabernacle. 

9  Audit  came  to  pass, 
as  Moses  entered  into 
the  tabernacle,  the 
cloudy  pillar  descended, 
and  stood  at  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle,  and  the 
Lord  talked  with  Moses. 

10  And  all  the  people 
saw  the  cloudy  pillar 
stand  at  the  tabernacle 
door  ;  and  all  the  people 
rose  up  and  worshipped, 
every  man  in  his  tent 
door. 

11  And  the  Lord 
spake  unto  Moses  face 
to  face,  as  a  man 
speaketh  unto  his  friend. 
And  he  turned  again  in- 
to  the   camp ;    but    his 


Exodus. 

J.  P- 

CHAP.  XXXIII,   18-23.  CHAP.  XXXIV,   29-35. 


18  And  he  said,  I  be- 
seech thee,  show  me  thy 
glory. 

19  And  he  said,  I  will 
make  all  my  goodness 
pass  before  thee,  and  I 
will  proclaim  the  name 
of  the  Lord  before  thee  ; 
and  will  be  gracious  to 
whom  I  will  be  gracious, 
and  will  shew  mercy 
on  whom  I  will  shew 
mercy. 

20  And  he  said.  Thou 
canst  not  see  my  face ; 
for  there  shall  no  man 
see  me,  and  live. 

21  And  the  Lord  said. 
Behold,  there  is  a  place 
by  me,  and  thou  shalt 
stand  upon  a  rock. 

22  And  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  while  my  glory 
passeth  by,  that  I  will 
put  thee  in  a  clift  of  the 
rock,  and  will  cover  thee 
with  my  hand  while  I 
pass  by ; 

23  And  I  will  take 
away  mine  hand,  and 
thou  shalt  see  my  back 
parts  ;  but  my  face  shall 
not  be  seen. 


29  And  it  came  to 
pass,  when  Moses  came 
down  from  mount  Sinai 
with  the  two  tables  of 
testimony  in  Moses' 
hand,  when  he  came 
down  from  the  mount, 
that  Moses  wist  not  that 
the  skin  of  his  face  shone 
while  he  talked  with 
him. 

30  And  when  Aaron 
and  all  the  children  of 
Israel  saw  Moses,  be- 
hold, the  skin  of  his  face 
shone ;  and  they  were 
afraid  to  come  nigh 
him. 

31  And  Moses  called 
unto  them  ;  and  Aaron 
and  all  the  rulers  of  the 
congregation  returned 
unto  him ;  and  Moses 
talked  with  them. 

32  And  afterward  all 
the  children  of  Israel 
came  nigh  and  he  gave 
them  in  commandment 
aU  that  the  Lord  had 
spoken  with  him  in 
mount  Sinai. 

33  And  till  Moses  had 
done  speaking  with 
them,  he  put  a  vail  on 
his  face. 

34  But  when  Moses 
went  in  before  the  Lord 
to  speak  with  him,  he 
took  the  vail  off,  until  he 
came  out.  And  he  came 
out,  and  spake  unto  the 
children   of  Israel   that 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS.  $7 

servant  Joshua,  the  son  which     he    was     com- 

of  Nun,  a  young  man,  manded. 

departed  not  out  of  the  35  And   the  children 

tabernacle,  of  Israel  saw  the  face  of 

Moses,  that  the  skin  of 
Moses'  face  shone  ;  and 
Moses  put  the  vail  upon 
his  face  again,  until  he 
went  in  to  speik  with 
him. 

We  have  here  three  representations  of  the  interviews 
of  Moses  with  Jehovah,  which  are  so  manifestly  different 
as  to  compel  the  conviction  that  they  were  taken  from 
different  sources.  According  to  E.,  Moses  saw  God  face 
to  face;  whereas,  according-  to  J.,  God  refused  to  allow 
Moses  to  see  his  face,  because  no  man  could  see  his  face 
and  live  (verse  20).  P.  was  evidently  inspired  by  E.  with 
the  idea  that  Moses  saw  God  face  to  face,  and,  therefore, 
went  before  the  Lord  unveiled.  These  different  repre- 
sentations are  grouped  in  chapters  xxxiii  and  xxxiv,  a 
fact  that  makes  the  composite  character  of  the  work  the 
more  evident. 

Leviticus. 

It  is  not  convenient  to  give  quotations  from  the  book 
of  Leviticus  to  illustrate  its  composite  character,  for  the 
reason  that  the  whole  book  is  made  up  of  three  sections. 
Chapters  i-xvi  are  from  P.;  chapters  xvii-xxvi  are  from 
"The  Law  of  Holiness,"  as  seemingly  recodified  by  P., 
and  chapter,^,^is  from  P.  XH  V  1 1 

Of  the  ''Law  of  Holiness,"  Canon  Driver  thus  speaks: 
"We  arrive  here  at  a  group  of  chapters  which  stand 
by  themselves  in  P.  While  in  general  form  and  scope 
appertaining  to  P.,  they  differ  from  the  main  body  of  P. 
by  the  presence  of  a  foreign  element,  which  manifests 
itself  partly  in  style  and  phraseology,  partly  in  the  mo- 
tives which  here  become  prominent.     The  phenomena 


58 


REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


which  the  chapters  present  are  explained  by  the  supposi- 
tion that  an  independent,  and  in  all  probability  an  older 
body  of  legislation,  lies  at  the  basis  of  chapters  xvii-xxvi, 
which  has  been  incorporated  in  p.     *     t.     * 

'*The  elements  thus  united  with  P.  are  distinguished 
from  it,  partly  by  the  predominance  of  certain  expressions, 
never  or  very  rarely  found  in  P.  (or  indeed  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch  generally);  partly  in  the  predominance  given  to 
particular  principles  and  motives.  The  laws  themselves 
have  also  (in  certain  instances)  been  provided  with  pare- 
netic  framework  in  a  manner  unlike  that  of  P."  {Intro- 
ducfion,  etc.,  pp.  43,  44.  See  also  pp.  45,  46  for  a  list  of 
phrases  which  characterize  the  code  of  Holiness,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  great  body  of  the  ''Priests'  Code.") 

Numbers, 
two  accounts  of  the  spies. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

26  And  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses  and  unto  Aaron,  say- 
ing, 

27  How  long  shall  I  bear 
with  this  evil  congregation, 
which  murmur  against  me? 
I  have  heard  the  murmurings 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  which 
they  murmur  against  me. 

28  Say  unto  them,  As  truly 
as  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  as  ye 
have  spoken  in  mine  ears,  so 
will  I  do  to  you: 

29  Your  carcasses  shall  fall 
in  this  wilderness;  and  all  that 
were  numbered  of  you,  accord- 
ing to  your  whole  number, 
from  twenty  years  old  and  up- 


J.   AND   E. 
CHAPTER  XIV. 

20  And  the  Lord  said,  I 
have  pardoned  according  to 
thy  word: 

21  But  as  truly  as  I  live,  all 
the  earth  shall  be  filled  with 
the  glory  of  the  Lord. 

22  Because  all  those  men 
which  have  seen  my  glory,  and 
my  miracles,  which  I  did  in 
Egypt  and  in  the  wilderness, 
and  have  tempted  me  now 
these  ten  times,  and  have  not 
hearkened  to  my  voice; 

23  Surely  they  shall  see  not 
the  land  which  I  sware  unto 
their  fathers,  neither  shall  any 
of  them  that  provoked  me  see 
it: 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


59 


ward,    which   have   murmured 
against  me. 

30  Doubtless  ye  shall  not 
come  into  the  land  concerning 
which  I  sware  to  make  you 
dwell  therein,  save  Caleb  the 
son  of  Jephunneh,  and  Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun. 


24  But  my  servant  Caleb, 
because  he  had  another  spirit 
with  him,  and  hath  followed 
me  fully,  him  will  I  bring  into 
the  land  whereinto  he  went; 
and  his  seed  shall  possess  it. 


In  P.'s  account  Joshua  and  Caleb  are  always  united, 
and  Aaron  is  mentioned  several  times  as  acting-  with 
Moses;  and  in  the  portion  quoted  above,  Joshua  and 
Caleb  are  to  come  into  the  land  of  promise  as  a  reward 
for  their  faithfulness;  but  in  J.,  E.,  Caleb  appears  and  acts 
alone;  Moses  is  always  named  without  Aaron;  and  it  is 
Caleb  only  who  is  to  be  preserved  aUve  and  to  be  re- 
warded in  the  land  of  promise.  A  study  of  the  whole  ac- 
count shows  most  conclusively  that  two  narratives,  taken 
from  different  sources,  have  been  compacted  into  one 
story. 

KoRAH,  Dathan,  and  Abiram. 

NUMBERS.      CHAPTER  XVI. 


1  Now  Korah  the  son  of 
Izhar,  the  son  of  Kohath,  the 
son  of  Levi. 

2  Two  hundred  and  fifty 
princes  of  the  assembly, 
famous  in  the  congregation, 
men  of  renown. 

3  And  they  gathered  them- 
selves together  against  Moses, 
and  against  Aaron,  and  said 
unto  them,  Ye  take  too  much 
upon  you,  seeing  all  the  con- 
gregation are  holy,  every  one 
of  them,  and  the  Lord  is 
among  them:   wherefore  then 


J.  E. 

1  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the 
sons  of  Eliab,  and  On,  the  son 
of  Pelith,  sons  of  Reuben, 
took  men. 

2  And  they  rose  up  before 
Moses  with  certain  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel. 

12  And  Moses  sent  to  call 
Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  sons 
of  Eliab;  which  said,  We  will 
not  come  up: 

13  Is  it  a  small  thing  that 
thou  hast  brought  us  up  out  of 
a  land  that  floweth  with  milk 
and  honey,  to  kill  us  in  the 


6o 


REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


lift  ye  up  yourselves  above  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord? 

4  And  when  Moses  heard  it, 
he  fell  upon  his  face: 

5  And  he  spake  unto  Korah, 
and  unto  all  his  company,  say- 
ing, Even  to-morrow  the  Lord 
will  shew  who  are  his,  and 
who  is  holy,  and  will  cause 
him  to  come  near  unto  him: 
even  him  whom  he  hath 
chosen  will  he  cause  to  come 
near  unto  him. 

6  This  do:  Take  your  cen- 
sers, Korah,  and  all  his  com- 
pany; 

7  And  put  fire  therein,  and 
put  incense  in  them  before  the 
Lord  to-morrow:  and  it  shall 
be,  that  the  man  whom  the 
Lord  doth  choose,  he  shall  be 
holy:  ye  take  too  much  upon 
you,  ye  sons  of  Levi. 

8  And  Moses  said  unto 
Korah,  Hear,  I  pray  you,  ye 
sons  of  Levi, 

9  Seemeth  it  but  a  small 
thing  unto  you,  that  the  God 
of  Israel  hath  separated  you 
from  the  congregation  of 
Israel,  to  bring  you  near  to 
himself,  to  do  the  service  of 
the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord,  and 
to  stand  before  the  congrega- 
tion to  minister  unto  them? 

ID  And  he  hath  brought  thee 
near  to  him,  and  all  thy 
brethren  the  sons  of  Levi  with 
thee:  and  seek  ye  the  priest- 
hood also? 

II  For  which  cause,  both 
thou  and  all  thy  company  are 
gathered  together  against  the 


wilderness,  except  thou  make 
thyself  altogether  a  prince 
over  us? 

14  Moreover,  thou  hast  not 
brought  us  into  a  land  that 
floweth  with  milk  and  honey, 
or  given  us  inheritance  of 
fields  and  vineyards:  wilt  thou 
put  out  the  eyes  of  these  men? 
we  will  not  come  up. 

15  And  Moses  was  very 
wroth,  and  said  unto  the  Lord, 
Respect  not  thou  their  offer- 
ing: I  have  not  taken  one  ass 
from  them,  neither  have  I  hurt 
one  of  them. 

25  And  Moses  rose  up,  and 
went  unto  Dathan  andAbiram; 
and  the  elders  of  Israel  fol- 
lowed him. 

26  And  he  spake  unto  the 
congregation,  saying,  depart, 
I  pray  you,  from  the  tents  of 
these  wicked  men,  and  touch 
nothing  of  theirs,  lest  ye  be 
consumed  in  all  their  sins. 

27  So  they  gat  up  *  *  * 
from  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  on 
every  side,  and  Dathan  and 
Abiram  came  out,  and  stood  in 
the  door  of  their  tents,  and 
their  wives,  and  their  sons,  and 
their  little  children. 

28  And  Moses  said,  Hereby 
ye  shall  know  that  the  Lord 
hath  sent  me  to  do  all  these 
works;  (for  I  have  not  done 
them  of  mine  own  mind;) 

29  If  these  men  die  the  com- 
mon death  of  all  men,  or  if 
they  be  visited  after  the  visita- 
tion of  all  men,  then  the  Lord 
hath  not  sent  me. 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


6i 


Lord:  and  what  is  Aaron,  that 
ye  murmur  against  him? 

i6  And  Moses  said  unto 
Korah;  Be  thou  and  all  thy 
company  before  the  Lord, 
thou,  and  they,  and  Aaron,  to- 
morrow: 

17  And  take  every  man  his 
censer,  and  put  incense  in 
them,  and  bring  ye  before  the 
Lord  every  man  his  censer, 
two  hundred  and  fifty  censers; 
thou  also,  and  Aaron,  each  of 
you  his  censer. 

18  And  they  took  every  man 
his  censer,  and  put  fire  in 
them,  and  laid  incense  thereon, 
and  stood  in  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation 
with  Moses  and  Aaron. 

19  And  Korah  gathered  all 
the  congregation  against  them 
unto  the  door  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation:  and 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  appeared 
unto  all  the  congregation. 

20  And  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses  and  unto  Aaron,  say- 
ing   ********* 

35  And  there  came  out  a  fire 
from  the  Lord,  and  consumed 
the  two  hundred  and  fifty  men 
that  ofTered  incense. 

Here  we  have  a  composite  account  of  two  rebellions. 
The  first  was  inspired  by  ecclesiastical,  and  the  second  by 
political,  jealousies.  The  first  was  led  by  Korah,  a  Le- 
vite,  and  two  hundred  and  fifty  princes,  against  Moses 
and  Aaron,  saying,  "Ye  take  too  much  upon  you,  seeing 
all  the  congregation  are  holy,  every  one  of  them;  where- 
fore then  lift  ye  up  yourselves  above  the  congregation  of 


30  But  if  the  Lord  make  a 
new  thing,  and  the  earth  open 
her  mouth,  and  swallow  them 
up,  with  all  that  appertain 
unto  them,  and  they  go  down 
quick  into  the  pit,  then  ye  shall 
understand  that  these  men 
have   provoked  the  Lord. 

31  And  it  came  to  pass,  as 
he  had  made  an  end  of  speak- 
ing all  these  words,  that  the 
ground  clave  asunder  that  was 
under  them: 

32  And  the  earth  opened  her 
mouth,  and  swallowed  them 
up,  and  their  houses,  and  all 
the  men  that  appertained  unto 
them  and  all  their  goods. 

33  They,  and  all  that  apper- 
tained to  them,  went  down 
alive  into  the  pit,  and  the  earth 
closed  upon  them:  and  they 
perished  from  among  the  con- 
gregation: 

34  And  all  Israel  that  were 
round  about  them  fled  at  the 
cry  of  them:  for  they  said, Lest 
the  earth  swallow  us  up  also. 


62 


REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 


the  Lord."  The  second  was  led  by  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
and  On,  sons  of  Reuben,  saying  to  Moses,  "Is  it  a  small 
thing  that  thou  hast  brought  us  up  out  of  a  land  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey,  to  kill  us  in  the  wilderness,  except 
thou  make  thyself  also  a  prince  over  us?  Moreover,  thou 
hast  not  brought  us  into  a  land  that  floweth  with  milk 
and  honey,  or  given  us  inheritance  of  fields  and  vine- 
yards: wilt  thou  put  out  the  eyes  of  these  men?" 

Korah  and  his  two  hundred  and  fifty  princes  were  put 
to  the  test  of  the  censers  (verses  6  and  7)  and  were  de- 
stroyed by  fire  from  the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  Taber- 
nacle (verse  35).  Dathan  and  Abiram  with  all  their  com- 
pany were  engulfed  in  the  earth  as  they  stood  in  the 
doors  of  their  tents  (verses  31-34). 

Joshua, 
the  monumental  stones. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

4  Then  Joshua  called  the 
twelve  men,  whom  he  had  pre- 
pared of  the  children  of  Israel, 
out  of  every  tribe  a  man: 

5  And  Joshua  said  unto 
them,  Pass  over  before  the  ark 
of  the  Lord  your  God  into  the 
midst  of  Jordan,  and  take  you 
up  every  man  of  you  a  stone 
upon  his  shoulder,  according 
unto  the  number  of  the  tribes 
of  the  children  of  Israel: 

6  That  this  may  be  a  sign 
among  you,  that  when  your 
children  ask  their  fathers  in 
time  to  come,  saying.  What 
mean  ye  by  these  stones? 

7  Then  ye  shall  answer 
them,  That  the  waters  of  Jor- 


CHAPTER   IV. 

1  And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
all  the  people  were  clean 
passed  over  Jordan,  that  the 
Lord  spake  unto  Joshua,  say- 
ing, 

2  Take  you  twelve  men  out 
of  the  people,  out  of  every 
tribe  a  man. 

3  And  command  ye  them, 
saying.  Take  you  hence  out  of 
the  midst  of  Jordan,  out  of  the 
place  where  the  priests'  feet 
stood  firm,  twelve  stones,  and 
ye  shall  carry  them  over  with 
you.  and  leave  them  in  the 
lodging  place,  where  ye  shall 
lodge  this  night. 

8  And  the  children  of  Israel 
did  so  as  Joshua  commanded, 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS. 


63 


dan  were  cut  off  before  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord; 
when  it  passed  over  Jordan, 
the  waters  of  Jordan  were  cut 
off;  and  these  stones  shall  be 
for  a  memorial  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  for  ever. 

9  And  Joshua  set  up  twelve 
stones  in  the  midst  of  Jordan, 
in  the  place  where  the  feet  of 
the  priests  which  bare  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  stood:  and 
they  are  there  unto  this  day. 


and  took  up  twelve  stones  out 
of  the  midst  of  Jordan,  as  the 
Lord  spake  unto  Joshua,  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  the 
tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel, 
and  carried  them  over  with 
them  unto  the  place  where 
they  lodged  and  laid  them 
down  there. 

20  And  those  twelve  stones, 
which  they  took  out  of  Jor- 
dan, did  Joshua  pitch  in  Gil- 
gal. 

21  And  he  spake  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  saying. 
When  your  children  shall  ask 
their  fathers  in  time  to  come, 
saying.  What  mean  these 
stones? 

22  Then  ye  shall  let  your 
children  know,  saying,  Israel 
came  over  this  Jordan  on  dry 
land. 

23  For  the  Lord  your  God 
dried  up  the  waters  of  Jordan 
from  before  you,  until  ye  were 
passed  over,  as  the  Lord  your 
God  did  to  the  Red  Sea,  which 
he  dried  up  from  before  us, 
until  we  were  gone  over: 

24  That  all  the  people  of  the 
earth  might  know  that  the 
hand  of  the  Lord,  that  it  is 
mighty:  that  ye  might  fear  the 
Lord  your  God  for  ever. 


We  have  here  one  command  to  gather  from  the  river, 
''where  the  priests'  feet  stood  firm,"  twelve  stones,  by 
twelve  men,  one  from  each  tribe,  which  stones  were  to 
be  carried  over  the  river  and  left  in  the  lodging  place;  but 
with  these  stones,  according  to  the  composite  account, 


64  REASONS   FOR  THE  HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

two  monuments  were  built,  one  in  the  midst  of  the  river 
and  one  in  Gilgal.  In  each  case  the  reasons  given  for  the 
memorial  stones  are  the  same,  but  at  the  same  time  dif- 
ferent, verses  6,  7;  verses  21-24.  The  combination  of  two 
accounts  in  the  formation  of  one  story  is  evident. 

Criticism  reveals  that  the  book  of  Joshua  is  composite, 
and  that  it  is  constituted  mainly  of  excerpts  from  J.,  E. 
and  P.,  with  some  from  other  sources,  not  yet  definitely 
determined;  and  also  that  many  very  important  additions 
and  touches  were  made  by  a  redactor,  who  wrote  in  the 
spirit  and  style  of  the  author  of  Deuteronomy. 

In  the  meantime  let  it  be  noted  that  what  we  have 
seen  was  in  accordance  with  the  literary  usage  of  the 
ancient  world.  Prof.  Sayce  says:  'The  place  occupied 
by  the  Pentateuch  in  the  sacred  literature  of  Israel  was 
substantially  occupied  by  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Dead 
in  the  sacred  literature  of  Egypt,  as  well  as  by  the  relig- 
ious hymns  and  the  ritual  of  which  they  formed  a  part  in 
the  sacred  literature  of  Babylonia.  *  *  *  The  com- 
posite character  of  the  Pentateuch,  therefore,  is  only  what 
the  study  of  similar  contemporaneous  literature,  brought 
to  light  by  modern  research,  would  lead  us  to  expect.  The 
Higher  Criticism  has  thus  far  been  justified  in  its  literary 
analysis  of  the  Books  of  Moses."  However  much  Prof. 
Sayce  may  differ  from  the  higher  critics  as  to  the  time 
and  personnel  of  the  work  of  composing  the  Pentateuch, 
he  has  no  doubt  that  the  composite  method  was  used. 
It  was  substantially  the  literary  method  of  all  the  East. 
The  old  was  not  digested  and  reproduced  in  substance, 
but  was  taken  in  its  original  form  and  compacted  with 
excerpta  from  other  writings,  new  or  old,  as  the  case 
might  be.  The  Hexateuch  was  not  the  only  outcome  of 
this  process,  but  the  historical  books,  Judges,  Samuel, 
Kings  and  Chronicles  were  so  made. 

Some  of  the  books  of  prophecy  also,  notably  Isaiah 


SOME  EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ANALYSIS.  65 

and  Daniel,  were  subjected  to  like  handling,  and  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  find  any  book  of  the  Old  Testament  that  does  not 
show  some  of  the  marks  of  the  process. 

Indeed,  the  use  of  the  composite  method  in  literature 
was  singularly  persistent.  It  outlived  the  ancients,  and 
was  actively  employed  long  after  the  apostolic  age.  It 
survived,  we  know,  to  late  in  the  second  century  of  our 
era,  when  Tatian,  a  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  produced 
the  Diatessaron  by  compiling  the  four  Evangelists  into  a 
single  gospel  in  precisely  the  same  way  that  the  Hexa- 
teuch  was  produced. 

This  Diatessaron  played  an  important  part  in  the 
history  of  a  number  of  the  Syrian  churches  in  the  fifth 
century,  for  it  came  near  supplanting  the  separate  gospels 
in  the  great  dioceses  of  that  country. 

"It  must  be  borne  in  mind,"  says  Dr.  Moore,  of  An- 
dover,  "that  this  patchwork  was  made,  not  of  indififerent 
historical  writings,  but  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church;  that  it  was  meant  to  take  the  place  of  the 
gospels;  that  it  accomplished  its  end  so  successfully  that 
it  almost  completely  superseded  the  separate  gospels  in 
the  public  use  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  Syrian 
churches;  that  it  was,  apparently,  only  under  influence 
from  without  that  it  was  banished  from  the  use  of  these 
churches  in  the  fifth  century.  Aphraates  and  Ephraim 
are  acquainted,  indeed,  with  the  separate  gospels;  but 
it  is  certainly  within  the  bounds  of  possibility  that,  if  the 
Syrian  church  had  been  left  to  itself,  without  contact  with 
the  greater  church  to  the  West,  the  knowledge  of  the 
separate  gospels  might  in  the  end  have  been  lost,  even 
among  the  learned.  The  parallel  to  the  history  of  the 
Pentateuch  would  then  have  been  complete."  And  to  this 
we  may  justly  add  that  if  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus, 
who  suppressed  the  Diatessaron,  instead  of  having  in  his 
possession  the  original  gospels,  had  disentangled  them 


66  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

from  their  composite  arrangement  in  the  Diatessaron  and 
restored  them  to  their  separate  forms,  he  would  have  been 
in  exact  parallel  with  the  modern  Higher  Critics,  who, 
like  him,  are  certainly  not  destroyers  of,  but  in  as  high  a 
sense,  if  not  in  so  complete  a  result,  restorers  of  tne 
word  of  God. 

In  thus  restoring  the  prophetical  and  priestly  docu- 
ments, the  Higher  Critics  have  performed  a  work  for 
which  the  Christian  and  Jewish  world  may  well  be 
thankful. 

Now  all  things  are  made  to  fall  into  their  right  places 
and  to  appear  in  their  true  historic  order;  and  now  the 
development  of  Revelation,  under  divine  guidance,  be- 
comes a  movement  in  the  rising  inflection,  in  harmony 
with  the  historic  unfolding  of  human  intelligence  and  the 
enlargement  of  spiritual  experiences. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  FOUR  ORIGINAL  DOCUMENTS. 

By  what  may  be  called  unanimous  agreement  of  crit- 
ical scholars,  the  four  principal  documents  used  by  the 
compilers  of  the  Hexateuch  are  the  Yahvistic,  the  Elo- 
histic,  the  Deuteronomic  and  the  Priests'  Code.  It  is 
contended  by  experts  that  these  documents  bear  such  dis- 
tinctive marks  that  the  parts  of  each  used  in  the  com- 
posite work  can  be  recognized  and  separated  from  their 
present  setting.  The  styles  of  the  Yahvistic  and  Elohistic 
documents  are  as  different  from  that  of  the  Priests'  Code 
as  is  Macaulay's  from  Carlyle's;  and  though  the  differ- 
ence between  the  styles  of  the  Yahvist  and  Elo- 
hist  is  not  so  manifest,  yet,  one  skilled  in  such  matters 
can  suf^ciently  recognize  their  peculiarities  to  separate 
them  with  general  satisfaction. 

But  the  analysis  is  not  wholly  dependent  upon  style. 
Other  distinctive  marks  appear  in  the  frequent  use  of  cer- 
tain technical  words  and  set  phrases  and  of  the  names  of 
particular  persons  associated  usually  with  official  duties. 
t  or  instance,  the  Yahvist  seldom  mentions  Aaron  in  con- 
nection with  Moses,  whereas  the  author  of  the  Priests' 
Code  seldom  fails  to  do  so.  The  analysis  also  receives 
much  help  from  the  trend  of  thought  and  doctrine  in 
association  with  the  characteristic  styles. 

Having  found  that  a  writer  throughout  the  book  of 
Genesis  uses  the  word  Yahweh  in  connection  with  cer- 
tain ethical  teachings,  we  can  easily  recognize  his  work 
as  he  appears  in  the  other  books,  in  which  the  same  fea- 
tures are  conspicuous.    The  author  of  the  Priests'  Code 

67 


68  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

is  distinctly  ecclesiastical.  He  loves  to  give  long  lists  of 
minute  regulations  of  religious  ceremonies,  and  revels 
in  chronology  and  genealogy,  but  he  has  little  to  say  on 
really  ethical  and  religious  matters,  apart  from  ceremonial 
observances. 

The  analysis  is  also  aided  by  the  historical  facts  given 
in  the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings.  Such  state- 
ments determine  much  as  to  the  time  and  circumstances 
in  which  laws  and  usages  became  prominent  that  were 
attributed  to  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  which  they 
incidentally  show  to  have  had  another  and  a  much  later 
origin. 

THE   YAIIVIST. 

The  author  of  the  Yahvistic  document  is  generally 
believed  by  critics  to  have  been  a  prophet  of  Judah,  who 
wrote  about  the  year  800  B.  C.  He  was  not,  in  the  mod- 
ern sense,  a  historian,  but  a  great  teacher  of  religion  and 
morals,  who  made  use  of  the  traditions  and  literary  rec- 
ords of  his  people  to  illustrate  his  inspired  conceptions 
of  God's  nature  and  government,  as  also  his  purposes 
concerning  his  chosen  people.  In  the  arrangement  of  his 
materials  he  followed  the  accepted  chronology,  his 
aim  being  to  instruct  his  countrymen,  that  he  might  save 
them  from  the  influence  of  the  heathen  nations  with 
whom  they  were  in  constant  contact,  whose  gods  seem 
always  to  have  had  a  fascination  for  them.  He 
aimed  to  so  exalt  Yahweli  as  to  convince  them  of  his 
infinite  superiority  over  all  that  is  called  god  in  regard 
to  both  power  and  righteousness.  In  this  great  argu- 
ment, the  creation  of  the  world,  the  transactions  of  Eden, 
the  Deluge,  the  Tower  of  Babel,  and  other  traditions, 
play  a  conspicuous  part. 

Having  magnified  Yahweh  by  this  use  of  the  ancient 
legends,  he  gathered  from  the  historic  period  incidents 
by  which  to  impress  upon  the  ungrateful  Hebrews  the 


THE    FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  69 

supreme  fact  that  it  was  only  through  the  special  favor 
of  Yahweh  they  had  become  a  nation,  and  in  that  capacity 
had  attained  to  greatness. 

In  following  the  providential  order  by  which  these 
results  had  been  reached,  the  Yahvistic  author  brought 
out  the  ethical  nobleness  of  Abraham  and  his  high  favor 
with  God.  He  showed  him  to  have  been  "the  friend  of 
God"  and  a  sharer  of  his  secrets;  the  chosen  one  in  whom 
all  nations  should  be  blessed.  This  was  followed  by  the 
stories  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  on  to  the  formation  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  to  show  their  high  and  virtuous  origin 
as  compared  with  the  ignoble  liaisons  to  which  they 
traced  the  birth  of  those  nations,  whose  gods  they  were 
prone  to  follow.  Abraham,  he  declared,  was  the  father  of 
the  Hebrews,  but  the  IMoabites  and  Ammonites  were  the 
children  of  Lot,  through  the  unchaste  conduct  of  his  two 
daughters.  The  Ishmaelites  were  descended  from  a  slave, 
w'hile  the  Israelites  could  boast  of  Isaac,  the  child  of 
promise,  as  their  great  ancestor.  The  Edomites  had  Esau 
for  father,  a  parentage  obviously  much  inferior  to  that  of 
a  people  descended  from  a  prince  who  could  "prevail  with 
God."  Thus  seems  to  run  the  argument  all  through  Gen- 
esis, and  the  conclusion  is  emphatic,  that  a  people  of  such 
noble  birth  should  be  faithful  to  the  God  who  had  given 
it  by  the  special  ordering  of  his  providence. 

Throughout  the  remainder  of  Yahvistic  document  the 
same  persuasive  reasoning  continues.  Yahweh  visits  his 
people  in  their  bondage  and  brings  them  out  of  Egypt 
"with  a  mighty  hand  and  outstretched  arm,"  and  by  won- 
derfully miraculous  interposition  leads  them  through  the 
Wilderness  to  the  land  of  their  inheritance. 

The  Deuteronomist  grasps  with  a  master  mind  the 
purpose  of  the  Yahvist's  teachings.  "Ask  now,"  says  he, 
"of  the  days  that  are  past,  *  *  ^  since  the  day  that 
God  created  man  upon  the  earth,  and  ask  from  one  side 


70  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  heaven  unto  the  other  whether  there  hath  been  any 
such  thing  as  this  great  thing  is  or  hath  been  heard  hke 
it?  Did  ever  a  people  hear  the  voice  of  God,  speaking 
out  of  the  midst  of  fire,  as  thou  hast,  and  Hve?  Or 
hath  God  assayed  to  go  and  take  him  a  nation,  from  the 
midst  of  another  nation,  by  temptations,  by  signs  and  by 
wonders,  and  by  war,  and  by  a  mighty  hand,  and  by  a 
stretched-out  arm,  and  by  great  terrors,  according  to  all 
that  the  Lord  your  God  did  for  you  in  Egypt  before 
your  eyes?  Unto  thee  it  was  showed  that  thou  mightest 
know  that  YahzvcJi  is  God.  There  is  none  else  beside 
him. 

''Out  of  Heaven  he  made  thee  to  hear  his  voice,  that 
he  might  instruct  thee,  and  upon  earth  he  showed  thee 
his  great  fire;  and  thou  heardest  his  words  out  of  the 
midst  of  the  fire. 

"And  because  he  loved  thy  fathers,  therelore  he  chose 
their  seed  after  them,  and  brought  thee  out  in  his  sight 
with  his  mighty  power  out  of  Egypt;  to  drive  out  the 
nations  from  before  thee  greater  and  mightier  than 
thou  art,  to  bring  thee  in,  to  give  thee  their  land  for  an 
inheritance  as  it  is  this  day. 

"Knovv^,  therefore,  this  day,  and  consider,  that  the 
Lord  is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon  the  earth  be- 
neath; there  is  none  else.  Thou  shalt  keep,  therefore,  his 
statutes  and  his  commandments,  which  I  command  thee 
this  day,  and  that  it  may  go  well  with  thee,  and  w4th  thy 
children  after  thee,  and  that  thou  mayest  prolong  thy 
days  upon  the  earth,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee, 
forever." — Deuteronomy  iv:  31-40. 

What  the  Deuteronomist  desired  to  accomplish  by  his 

^/      persuasive  rehearsal  of  God's  wonderful  provjjices  the 

I        Yahvist  hoped  to  achieve  by  the  presentation  of  like 

events  in  a  more  historical  form.    The  whole  trend  of  his 

work  was  the  commendation  of  the  claims  of  Yahweh, 

based  on  her  history,  to  the  faith  and  devotion  of  Israel. 


THE    FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  7 1 

THE    ELOHIST. 

The  Elohist  was  a  prophetical  writer  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  and  composed  his  book  about  750  B.  C.  Un- 
like the  Yahvist,  he  betrays  no  fondness  for  the  priest- 
hood or  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,  nor  yet  for  kings.  He 
loved  the  old  theocrac}^  which  began  with  Moses  and 
ended  with  Samuel.  Taking  the  call  of  Abraham  as  the 
starting  point  of  his  historical  argument,  he  selected  such 
incidents  in  the  national  records  as  placed  God's  hostility 
to  idolatry  and  immorality  in  greatest  prominence.  Every 
violation  of  God's  will  is  followed  by  swift  punishment, 
and  every  act  of  repentance  by  pardon.  His  contest  is 
with  the  widespread  idolatry  and  wickedness  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom,  which  he  seeks  to  overcome  by 
showing  that  the  safety  and  happiness  of  the  people  were 
to  be  found  only  in  faithful  obedience  to  Elohim  and  his 
righteous  laws,  as  set  forth  in  his  ethical  covenants  and 
enforced  by  his  prophets. 

THE  DEUTERONOMIST. 

At  a  later  period,  seventh  century  B.  C.,  came  the 
book  of  Deiiteronomy.  After  the  overthrow  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom  of  Israel,  and  after  the  days  of  Isaiah 
and  Micah,  it  was  produced  as  a  recodification  of  the  laws 
of  Moses,  and  a  re-arrangement  of  his  prophetical  dis- 
courses. It  had  two  conspicuous  objects,  viz.,  first,  to 
enforce,  under  Mosaic  sanctions,  the  old  prophetical  les- 
sons of  righteousness,  and,  second,  to  unify  the  people 
of  Judah  by  the  concentration  of  worship  at  the  Temple 
in  Jerusalem.  As  St.  John,  in  his  Gospel,  gives  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ  in  what  we  may  call  the  Johannine  style, 
so  the  writer  or  compiler  of  Deuteronomy  clothes,  in  his 
own  majestic  style,  the  teachings  of  the  great  Lawgiver, 
and  gives  to  them  such  dramatic  setting  as  the  ancient 
records  warrant  and  the  exigencies  of  the  truth  require. 


72  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  he  invented  the  law  of  the 
one  place  of  worship  and  the  one  altar,  but  there  are 
reasons  for  believing  that  he  found  among  his  sources  of 
information  evidence  of  such  having  been  the  original 
design  of  Moses,  to  be  realized  when  the  Israelites  should 
have  become  a  settled  nation.  The  Mosaic  ideal,  he 
plainly  tells  us  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy, 
was  not  realized  in  the  wilderness;  during  the  forty  years 
of  wanderings  the  people  did  what  was  right  in  their  own 
eyes,  a  condition  of  things  which  was  to  continue  until 
God  should  give  them  rest  from  all  their  enemies,  so  that 
they  might  dwell  safely;  but  when  this  should  transpire, 
God  would  choose  a  place,  and  thither  they  should  bring 
their  burnt  offerings,  and  their  sacrifices,  and  their  tithes, 
etc.  (Deuteronomy  xii:  lo,  ii).  The  proper  conditions 
for  the  enforcement  of  this  Mosaic  tentative  command 
were  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  future  authorities  of  the 
nation,  and  these  (supposing  they  knew  of  the  INIosaic 
injunction),  decided  that  the  time  for  its  enforcement  had 
not  arrived  until  Josiah,  who,  under  the  influence  of  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy,  determined  to  accomplish  it. 
There  are  some  indications  that  Hezekiah,  eighty  years 
before,  thought  the  time  had  come  to  introduce  the  sys- 
tem of  Temple  unity,  but  he  soon  found  that  the  condi- 
tions of  unrest  in  the  nation,  and  the  dangers  which  envi- 
roned it,  did  not  meet  the  requirements  of  such  a  revolu- 
tion. It  is  hardly  probable  that  Hezekiah  derived  his 
knowledge  from  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  but  that  he 
had  access  to  the  sources  from  which  that  book  was  after- 
wards compiled,  perhaps  by  one  inspired  by  his  failure. 
Had  the  book  of  the  Law,  as  contained  in  Deuteronomy, 
been  in  circulation  at  that  time,  Isaiah  and  Micah  could 
hardly  have  escaped  its  influence,  and  left  no  trace  of  its 
peculiar  presentation  of  the  law  of  central  worship,  nor 
yet  of  its  high  sanctions  of  the  Levitical  priesthood.     I 


THE   FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  73 

cannot  go  further  into  the  elaborate  arguments  which 
show  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  after  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  but  accepting  as  conclusive  the  claims  of  Ori- 
entalists generally,  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to 
lower  its  standing  as  a  sacred  oracle  or  to  feel  doubtful 
of  its  divine  sanctions.  Though  the  book,  as  such,  was 
not  written  by  Moses,  it  preserves  substantially  the  Mo- 
saic laws  and  regulations,  with  expansions  and  additions 
to  adapt  them  to  the  progress  of  society. 

Deuteronomy  itself  does  not  claim  Moses  for  its 
author,  but  it  does  claim  to  set  forth  his  discourses  and 
laws.  The  standpoint  of  the  compiler  is  not,  as  the  King 
James  version  gives  it,  on  the  east  side  of  Jordan,  but  is 
most  distinctly  on  the  west  side.  He  docs  not  begin  by 
saying,  "These  be  the  words  which  Moses  spake  unto  all 
Israel  on  this  side  Jordan  in  the  wilderness,"  etc.,  but 
(as  in  the  Revised  Version)  'These  be  the  words  which 
Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  in  the  wilder- 
ness," etc.  Clearly  the  book  was  not  commenced  until 
after  the  death  of  Moses  and  the  Jordan  had  been  crossed. 

"Beyond  Jordan  in  the  land  of  Moab  began  Moses  to 
declare  this  law,  saying,"  are  the  words  of  one  who  wishes 
to  make  plain  to  all  men  that  he  is  not  representing  him- 
self as  the  great  lawgiver,  but  as  a  scribe  who  is  about  to 
set  forth  the  discourses  and  laws  as  delivered  by  Moses. 
The  laws  had  already  been  codified  mainly  in  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Yahvist  and  Elohist,  but  a  more  direct  un- 
folding of  them,  in  their  application  to  a  new  condition 
of  things,  was  needed  for  their  fuller  influence  upon  He- 
brew life;  and  the  material  for  this  Was  at  hand  in  the 
archives  of  the  nation  and  in  the  religious  literature  of 
the  times.  To  recast  these  materials,  and  to  rearrange 
them,  so  as  to  give  popular  effect  to  the  Mosaic  orations, 
was  the  task  which  the  writer  of  Deuteronomy  set  him- 
self.    Needless  to  say,  he  accompHshed  it  in  a  grand 


74  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

fashion;  like  St.  John,  he  produced  a  work  which,  though 
saturated  with  his  lofty  spirituality,  was  at  the  same  time 
a  true  presentation  of  the  teachings  of  his  great  master. 
Indeed,  no  charge  can  be  brought  against  the  Deuterono- 
mist  which  does  not  lie  with  equal  weight  against  St. 
John.  If  he  clothes  the  teaching  of  Moses  in  his  own 
lofty  style,  so  does  St.  John  clothe  the  discourses  of  Jesus; 
and  while  St.  John  made  the  most  successful  presentation 
of  the  character  and  teachings  of  Christ,  the  Deuterono- 
mist  revealed  to  us  Moses  and  his  laws  in  their  truest  and 
most  complete  form — a  work  well  worthy  of  the  greatest 
of  the  prophets.  If  Moses  was  inspired  to  utter  his  de- 
liverances, this  prophet  was  inspired  to  present  their  con- 
tents in  a  form  that  for  all  ages  would  stand  as  the  highest 
expression  of  ancient  revelation.  If  Moses  himself  had 
written  the  book  in  all  its  details,  it  would  not  have  been 
truer  in  its  representations,  nor  would  it  have  deserved 
more  credit  as  a  revelation  from  God. 

THE    priests'    CODE. 45O    B.    C. 

Next  in  order  is  the  Priests'  Code.  This  was  written 
from  a  priestly  standpoint,  mainly  after  the  time  of  Eze- 
kiel.  Its  author  made  use  of  the  older  documents,  as 
they  suited  his  purpose,  which  was  to  give  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal history  of  his  people.  Like  any  modern  church  histo- 
rian, he  sought  out  those  sources  of  information  which, 
while  they  did  not  ignore  secular  life,  showed  it  as  it  was 
dominated  by  the  religious  element.  As  the  prophets  in 
the  books  J.,  E.  and  Dt.  had  laid  emphasis  upon  events 
and  ordinances  of  worship  which  bore  upon  moral  con- 
duct, so  the  priestly  author  gave  prominence  to  such 
things  as  enforced  the  claims  of  the  priesthood,  the  cen- 
tral worship  of  the  Temple  and  other  prominent  religious 
institutions;  his  main  object  being  to  codify,  with  historic 
setting,  the  laws  of  the  priesthood,  sacrifice,  purifications, 


THE    FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  75 

etc.  His  sources  were  chiefly  the  records  treasured  in 
priestly  circles,  and  these  sources  claimed  Mosaic  au- 
thority for  all  the  usages  of  the  Levitical  ceremonial. 

He  begins  his  work  with  that  grand  account  of  crea- 
tion given  in  Genesis  i-ii:4a,and  proceeds  to  give  the  gen- 
erations of  Adam  and  the  genealogies  of  the  Patriarchs 
to  Noah.  An  extended  account  of  the  deluge  follows, 
which  is  closed  by  the  covenant  with  Noah.  In  chapter 
X  he  gives  the  generations  of  Noah  together  with  the 
distributions  of  the  families  of  his  sons  to  their  various 
habitations.  In  chapter  xi  he  records  the  generations  of 
Shem,  and  follows  with  a  brief  account  of  Abram,  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  (chapter  xxii:  i)  and  of  the  cir-  >iVll« 
cumcision  of  Isaac,  the  child  of  promise  (chapter  xxi:  4). 
He  has  much  to  tell  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  and  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Esau  (chapter  xxxiv-xxxviii),  and  follows 
with  an  enumeration  of  the  family  of  Jacob  upon  their 
going  down  to  Egypt,  and  closes  his  account  in  Genesis 
with  some  brief  notices  of  the  last  days  of  Jacob.  Of  his 
work  only  a  few  scattered  portions  are  found  in  the  book 
of  Exodus  until  we  reach  chapter  xxv,  when  he  begins  his 
account  of  the  building  of  the  Tabernacle,  etc.,  and  fol- 
lows it  to  the  end  of  the  book,  with  the  ex.ception  of 
chapters  xxxii-xxxiv:  28.  The  whole  of  Leviticus  is  his 
work  (for  it  is  probable  that  he  engrossed  the  Law  of 
Holiness,  chapter  xvii-xxvi).  In  this  book  he  gives  a 
most  minute  account  of  the  laws  of  sacrifice  and  of  the 
consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  the  priesthood,  and 
the  service  of  the  Tabernacle — following  it  in  the  book  of 
Numbers,  with  long  genealogical  tables,  regulations  of 
the  Levites,  and  several  incidents  illustrative  of  the  work- 
ings of  the  Levitical  laws,  on  to  the  death  of  Aaron.  In 
the  book  of  Joshua  here  appears  conspicuously  in  the  ac- 
counts of  the  distribution  to  the  various  tribes  of  their  in- 
heritances, and  in  various  events  with  which  Eleazar,  the 


76  REASONS    FOR   THE    HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

son  of  Aaron,  is  conspicuously  connected.  It  is  with  the 
estabHshment  of  the  exclusive  one-altar  worship  and  the 
exclusive  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  that  the  writer 
of  the  Priests'  Code  is  most  concerned,  and  it  is  upon 
these  things  that  he  is  most  emphatic.  His  laws  of  the 
one  altar  and  priesthood,  as  given  in  Leviticus  xvii:  1-9, 
Numbers  iii:  5-8,  have  an  unmistakable  intention. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  sa3ang:  Speak 
unto  Aaron,  and  unto  his  sons,  and  unto  all  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them :  This  is  the  thing  which  the 
Lord  hath  commanded,  saying, 

''What  man  soever  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel, 
that  kiileth  an  ox,  or  lamb,  or  goat,  in  the  camp,  or  that 
killeth  it  out  of  the  camp, 

"And  bringeth  it  not  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  to  offer  an  offering  unto  the  Lord  be- 
fore the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord;  blood  ohall  be  imputed 
unto  that  man;  he  hath  shed  blood;  and  that  man  shall 
be  cut  off  from  among  his  people; 

"To  the  end  that  the  children  of  Israel  may  bring  their 
sacrifices,  which  they  offer  in  the  open  field,  even  that 
they  may  bring  them  unto  the  Lord,  unto  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  unto  the  priest,  and  offer 
them  for  peace  offerings  unto  the  Lord. 

"And  the  priest  shall  sprinkle  the  blood  upon  the  altar 
of  the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion, and  burn  the  fat  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord. 

"And  they  shall  no  more  offer  their  sacrifices  unto 
devils,  after  whom  they  have  gone  a  whoring.  This  shall 
be  a  statute  forever  unto  them  throughout  their  genera- 
tions. 

"And  thou  shalt  say  unto  them.  Whatsoever  man 
there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  which 
sojourn  among  you,  that  offereth  a  burnt  offering  or  sac- 
rifice. 


THE   FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  T] 

"And  bringeth  it  not  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  to  offer  it  unto  the  Lord;  even  that  man 
shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people." — Leviticus  xvii: 
1-9. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying, 

"Bring  the  tribe  of  Levi  near,  and  present  them  before 
Aaron  the  priest,  that  they  may  minister  unto  him. 

"And  they  shall  keep  his  charge,  and  the  charge  of 
the  whole  congregation,  before  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation, to  do  the  service  of  the  tabernacle. 

"And  they  shall  keep  all  the  instruments  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation,  and  the  charge  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  to  do  the  service  of  the  tabernacle. 

"And  thou  shalt  give  the  Levites  unto  Aaron  and  his 
sons :  they  are  wholly  given  unto  him  out  of  the  children 
of  Israel. 

"And  thou  shalt  appoint  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  they 
shall  wait  on  their  priest's  office:  and  the  stranger  that 
cometh  nigh  shall  be  put  to  death."— Numbers  iii:  5-10. 

See  also  many  other  places  where  these  laws  give  to 
Aaron  and  his  sons  the  exclusive  priesthood,  and  make 
the  central  ahar  at  the  tabernacle  in  the  wilderness  the 
exclusive  place  of  sacrifice. 

It  is  again  and  again  declared  in  Leviticus  and  Num- 
bers that  Moses  published  and  enforced  these  laws  in  the 
wilderness;  but  this  claim  is  confronted  by  a  series  of 
facts  fatal  to  its  correctness. 

(i)  There  was  another  law  given  at  Sinai  by  which 
sacrifice  might  legally  be  made  upon  other  altars  than 
that  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle : 

"An  altar  of  earth  shalt  thou  make  unto  me,  and  shalt 
sacrifice  unto  me  thy  burnt  offerings  and  thy  peace  offer- 
ings, thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen;  in  all  places  where  I 
record  my  name  I  will  come  unto  thee  and  bless  thee. 
And  if  thou  wilt  make  me  an  altar  of  stone,  thou  shalt  not 


yS  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

build  it  of  hewn  stone ;  for  if  thou  Uft  up  thy  tool  upon  it, 
thou  hast  polluted  it.    Neither  shalt  thou  go  up  by  steps 
unto  mine  altar,  that  thy  nakedness  be  not  discovered 
thereon." — Exodus  xx:  24-26. 
In  accordance  with  the  law: 

(2)  "Moses  ^<  *  ^  rose  up  early  and  builded  an 
altar  *  >i^  ^'  and  he  sent  young  men  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  which  offered  burnt  offerings  and  sacrificed 
peace  offerings  of  oxen  unto  the  Lord." — Exodus 
xxiv:  4,  5. 

(3)  After  like  fashion  Joshua  built  an  altar  and  offered 
sacrifice  on  Mount  Ebal,  which,  it  is  said,  was  done  in 
obedience  to  the  law. 

(Written  in  the  book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  an  altar 
of  whole  stones,  over  which  no  man  hath  lifted  up  any 
iron. — ^Joshua  viii:  31.) 

Plainly  Joshua  did  not  know  of  the  laws  making  the 
priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  their  altar  of  brass 
at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  exclusive. 

(4)  It  is  said  in  the  book  of  Judges  (vi:  24-27)  that 
Gideon  built  an  altar  and  ofiered  sacrifices,  and  in  chapter 
xiii:  17-25,  we  are  told  that  Manoah  made  an  offering 
upon  a  rock,  which  God  accepted. 

(5)  We  are  informed  in  the  same  book  (xxi:  4)  that, 
during  the  controversy  of  Israel  w4th  the  tribe  of  Benja- 
min, the  people  built  an  altar  unto  the  Lord  and  offered 
burnt  offerings  and  peace  offerings. 

(6)  We  are  told  in  the  book  of  I  Samuel  (vii:  17)  that 
Samuel  built  an  altar  unto  the  Lord  at  Ramah,  and  in 
xiv:  35,  that  King  Saul  built  an  altar. 

(7)  In  II  Samuel  we  are  informed  that  King  David 
built  an  altar  and  offered  sacrifices  in  Jerusalem,  though 
he  had  just  brought  back  the  ark  and  placed  it  in  the 
Tabernacle  he  had  built  for  it. 

(8)  King  Solomon  went  from  Jerusalem  to  Gibeon 


THE   FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  79 

and  made  a  great  sacrifice,  and  was  there  favored  by  God 
with  his  noted  vision,  which  showed  plainly  that  his  offer- 
ings were  accepted. 

(9)  According  to  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  Moses 
did  not  establish  in  the  wilderness  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood with  exclusive  rights  to  minister  at  one  exclusive 
altar,  but  said  to  the  people  in  his  final  charge  to  them : 

"When  ye  go  over  Jordan  -i^  *  *  ye  shall  not  do 
after  all  the  things  that  we  do  here  this  day,  every  man 
what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes.  But  when  ye  go  over 
Jordan  and  dwell  in  the  land  which  the  Lord  your  God 
giveth  you  to  inherit,  and  when  he  giveth  you  rest  from 
all  your  enemies  round  about  so  that  ye  dwell  in 
safety,  then  there  shall  be  a  place  which  the  Lord  your 
God  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell  there;  thither 
ye  shall  bring  all  that  I  command  you,  your  burnt  offer- 
ings and  your  sacrifices,  your  tithes  and  your  peace  offer- 
ings of  your  hand,  and  all  your  choice  vows  which  ye 
vow  unto  the  Lord." — Deuteronomy  xii:  8-11. 

Assuming  that  the  Deuteronomist  correctly  quoted 
the  words  of  Moses,  how  can  they  be  harmonized  with 
the  laws  of  the  exchisive  altar  at  the  door  of  the  Taber- 
nacle, and  the  exclusive  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
in  their  historic  setting  as  given  in  Leviticus  and  Num- 
bers? Moses  is  represented  as  saying  in  effect  that  no 
such  exclusiveness  pertained  to  either  the  Tabernacle 
altar  or  the  priesthood;  and, further,  that  none  was  to  per- 
tain, even  in  regard  to  the  one  altar,  until  a  remote  time 
and  under  new  conditions.  "Then  shall  there  be  a  place 
which  the  Lord  your  God  shall  choose,"  etc.  The  place 
ultimately  chosen  was  Jerusalem,  and  the  time  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  one-altar  law  was  the  reign  of  King 
Josiah  (621  B.  C.);  but  the  law  of  the  exclusive  Aaronic 
priesthood  was  as  yet  not  known,  though  this  period  was 
more  than  six  centuries  after  Moses. 


80  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

The  Deuteronomist  knew  nothing  of  it,  for  in  the  ad- 
dresses of  Moses  as  he  gives  them,  Aaron  and  his  sons  are 
never  mentioned  as  entitled  to  exclusive  rights  in  the 
priesthood.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  always  implied  that  the 
Levites  as  a  body  are  of  the  priesthood,  the  usual  word 
used  being  ''the  priests  the  Levites."  The  idea  of  confin- 
ing the  priesthood  to  the  Aaronic  line  came  much  later, 
certainly  after  the  Temple  vision  of  Ezekiel,  574  B.  C. 
This  prophet  excludes  the  Levites  from  the  priestly  office 
in  the  restored  Temple,  because  of  their  former  defection. 
He  says  (xliv:  12-16): 

''Because  they  ministered  unto  them  before  their  idols, 
and  caused  the  house  of  Israel  to  fall  into  iniquity;  there- 
fore have  I  lifted  up  mine  hand  against  them,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  and  they  shall  bear  their  iniquity. 

"And  they  shall  not  come  near  unto  me,  to  do  the  office 
of  a  priest  unto  me,  nor  to  come  near  to  any  of  my  holy 
things,  in  the  most  holy  place;  but  they  shall  bear  their 
shame,  and  their  abominations  which  they  have  com- 
mitted. 

"But  I  will  make  them  keepers  of  the  charge  of  the 
house,  for  all  the  service  thereof,  and  for  all  that  shall  be 
done  therein. 

"But  the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok,  that 
kept  the  charge  of  my  sanctuary  when  the  children  of 
Israel  went  astray  from  me,  the}^  shall  come  near  to  me 
to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall  stand  before  me  to 
offer  unto  me  the  fat  and  the  blood,  saith  the  Lord  God. 

"They  shall  enter  into  my  sanctuary,  and  they  shall 
come  near  to  my  table,  to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall 
keep  my  charge." 

Hence,  it  follows  that  the  Levites,  up  to  the  time  of 
the  building  of  the  second  Temple,  were  to  continue  in 
the  rights  they  had  hitherto  enjoyed  as  priests.  The  time 
of  judgment  for  their  defection  would  come,  and  because 


THE    FOUR   ORIGINAL    DOCUMENTS.  8 1 

of  that  defection  they  would  not  be  permitted  then  to 
"come  near  unto"  God  ''to  do  the  office  of  a  priest." 

All  this  is  irreconcilable  with  the  law  of  the  exclusive 
Aaronic  priesthood  as  given  in  the  wilderness  in  P. 

I  give  again  the  law  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  accord- 
ing to  this  document  (Numbers  iii:  i-io): 

'These  also  are  the  generations  of  Aaron  and  Moses, 
in  the  day  that  the  Lord  spake  with  Moses  in  Mount 
Sinai. 

"And  these  are  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Aaron; 
Nadad  the  first-born,  and  Abihu,  Eleazar,  and  Ithamar. 

"These  are  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Aaron,  the 
priests  which  were  anointed,  whom  he  consecrated  to 
minister  in  the  priest's  office. 

"And  Nadab  and  Abihu  died  before  the  Lord,  when 
they  offered  strange  fire  before  the  Lord,  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sinai,  and  they  had  no  children:  and  Eleazar  and 
Ithamar  ministered  in  the  priest's  office  in  the  sight  of 
Aaron  their  father. 

"And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying, 

"Bring  the  tribe  of  Levi  near,  and  present  them 
before  Aaron  the  priest,  that  they  may  minister  unto 
him. 

"And  they  shall  keep  his  charge,  and  the  charge  of 
the  whole  congregation,  before  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation, to  do  the  service  of  the  tabernacle. 

"And  they  shall  keep  all  the  instruments  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  the  charge  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  to  do  the  service  of  the  tabernacle. 

"And  thou  shalt  give  the  Levites  unto  Aaron,  and 
to  his  sons;  they  are  wholly  given  unto  him  out  of  the 
children  of  Israel. 

"And  thou  shalt  appoint  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and 
they  shall  wait  on  their  priest's  office,  and  the  stranger 
that  Cometh  nigh  shall  be  put  to  death." 


82  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

If  this  law  had  been  proclaimed  and  enforced  in  the 
wilderness,  we  would  rightly  expect  to  find  in  the  relig- 
ious records  of  the  centuries  immediately  following  a 
recognition  of  "the  priests  and  the  Levites"  as  distinct 
orders.  But  such  is  not  the  case;  the  distinction  is  not 
noticed  in  the  early  literature,  and  becomes  prominent 
only  in  the  post-Exilic  records. 

(i)  Deuteronomy,  as  we  have  seen,  gives  no  hint  of 
two  orders,  "the  priests  and  the  Levites,"  but  (I  repeat  for 
the  sake  of  clearness),  uses  the  word  "the  priests  the 
Levites,"  or  simply  "the  priests,"  generally  the  former, 
and  in  xviii :  6,  gives  the  law  securing  to  the  country  Le- 
vites their  priestly  rights,  wdien  the  law  of  one  altar 
should  be  enforced.  Note  here  that  the  Levites  are 
treated  as  priests,  and  that  in  II  Kings  xxiii:  8,  they  are 
called  "priests,"  thus  showing  conclusively  that  the  word 
"Levites,"  as  used  in  Deuteronomy  xviii:  6,  and  the  word 
"priests,"  as  used  in  II  Kings  xxiii:  8,  are  synonymous. 

(2)  The  book  of  Joshua  makes  no  mention  of  "the 
priests  and  the  Levites,"  but  like  Deuteronomy  speaks 
of  "the  priests  the  Levites."  This  is  done  throughout  the 
law  of  inheritance,  even  in  the  parts  assigned  by  critics 
to  the  Priests'  Code,  thus  showing  that  the  priestly 
writer  was  true  to  the  ancient  documents.  He  gave  what 
he  found  in  the  records,  and  not  what  his  predilections 
would  have  suggested.  Had  the  words  "priests  and  Le- 
vites" been  used  in  the  ancient  traditions,  his  post-Ezekiel 
convictions  would  have  secured  their  continuance. 

(3)  The  book  of  Judges  is  silent  about  the  priesthood, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  Levite  who  became  priest  in  the 
private  chapel  of  Micah  and  finally  in  that  of  the  Danites 
at  Lachish  (xvii:  16),  which  is  incontestable  evidence 
that  the  Danites  believed  a  Levite  was  really  a  priest. 

(4)  The  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  know  nothing 
of  "priests  and  Levites."    They  recognize  the  priesthood 


THE   FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  83 

of  Eli  at  Shiloh,  of  Abimelech  at  Nob,  and  of  Abiathar 
and  Zadok  in  Jerusalem.  The  word  priest  is  frequently 
used  for  the  whole  order  of  the  priesthood,  and  some- 
times only  for  the  two  officiating  priests;  but  the  word 
Levites  is  always  used  as  the  equivalent  of  priests.  Thus : 
(I  Samuel  vi:  15)  "And  the  Levites  took  down  the  ark 
of  the  Lord."  To  handle  the  ark  was  the  privilege  of 
"the  priests  the  Levites"  (Joshua  iii:  3).  (II  Samuel  xv: 
24) :  "And  Zadok  and  all  the  Levites  that  were  with  him 
bearing  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  God." 

I  Kings  viii:  34:  (a)  The  elders  of  Israel  and  the 
priests  bear  the  ark.  (b)  Verse  24:  The  priests  (that  is 
Zadok  and  the  second  officiating  priest)  and  the  Levites 
bear  the  sacred  vessels. 

In  the  writings  of  the  pre-Exilic  prophets  there 
is  no  mention  of  "priests  and  Levites;"  and  most  signifi- 
cantly Jeremiah  writes:  "The  priests  the  Levites" 
(xxxiii:  18),  and  "the  Levites  the  priests"  (xxxiii:  21). 
Generally  he  confines  himself  to  "priest." 

It  was  after  the  formulation  of  Ezekiel's  law  of  the 
second  Temple,  and  doubtless  through  its  influence  that 
the  ancient  usage  began  to  change;  for,  while  Ezekiel 
uses  the  words  "the  priests  the  Levites,"  he  confines  it 
to  the  sons  of  Zadok;  and  he  denies  to  the  Levites,  in 
punishment  for  their  defection,  the  functions  of  priests, 
and  thus  differentiates  them  into  a  separate  order. 

The  influence  of  this  law  of  Ezekiel  soon  became  par- 
amount. This  prophet,  under  divine  sanction,  amended 
the  ancient  law,  thus  giving  to  the  Jewish  church  a  new 
organization  of  its  priesthood,  in  the  same  manner  that 
the  Deuteronomist ,  under  like  divine  sanction,  had  given 
it  a  new  law  of  sacrifice  by  confining  it  to  one  altar.  As 
this  one-altar  worship  from  the  days  of  Josiah  had  been 
recognized  in  the  literature,  so  this  law  of  the  priests  and 
Levites  was  recognized  in  the  post-Ezekiel  writings. 

In  Ezra  i :  5,  the  distinction  between  the  two  orders  is 


84  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

emphasized.  With  this  author  it  is  ''the  priests  and  the 
Levites."  This  positive  differentiation  is  adhered  to  all 
through  the  books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Chronicles, 
as  it  is  also  in  the  second  Isaiah  (Isaiah  Ixvi:  21),  "the 
great  prophet  of  the  exile." 

In  the  historical  books  of  post-Exilic  origin  the  dis- 
tinction between  priest  and  Levite  is  not  only  sharply 
drawn,  but  the  position  and  duties  of  each  order  are  so 
clearly  indicated  that  no  confusion  can  arise  concerning 
their  functions. 

From  all  this  it  follows  that,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, under  the  influence  of  the  Temple  vision  of 
Ezekiel,  traditions  concerning  the  Mosaic  law  grew  up 
in  Babylon  among  a  school  of  the  priests  which,  like 
some  Christian  traditions,  v/ere  imported  into  the  older 
documents,  and  came  to  be  accepted  as  authentic  parts  of 
their  original  institutions  and  laws. 

These  traditions  the  author  of  the  Priests'  Code  ac- 
cepted in  the  form  in  which  he  found  them,  and  gave  to 
them  such  historic  setting  as  the  nature  of  the  laws  de- 
manded. 

What  connection  Ezra  had  with  the  origin  of  the 
Priests'  Code  we  do  not  know,  but  it  is  evident  that  he 
brought  it  to  Jerusalem  and  promulgated  it  as  "the  law  of 
Moses"  (444  B.  C). 

The  problem  is  before  us.  We  have  found  four  lead- 
ing documents  in  the  Hexateuch,  J.,  E.,  Dt.  and  P.  Of 
these  only  P.  speaks  of  the  priestly  regulations  which 
we  have  been  discussing.  Dt.  gives  the  law  of  one  altar, 
P.  confines  the  ministrations  at  that  one  altar  to  the  sons 
of  Aaron.  How  did  P.  come  into  prominence  with  its 
Aaronic  priesthood,  ministering  exclusively  in  the  Taber- 
nacle in  the  wilderness? 

My  thesis  is  (after  F.  E.  Konig)  that  Moses  did 
establish  in  the  wilderness  the  Tabernacle   or  tent  of 


THE   FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  SS 

meeting,  with  its  ark  and  altar,  and  that  he  did  confer 
upon  Aaron  and  his  sons  the  chief  direction  of  the  wor- 
ship therein  as  conducted  by  ''the  priests  the  Levites," 
and  that  he  gave  many  and  minute  regulations  for  the 
proper  conduct  of  sacrifices,  offerings,  purifications,  etc., 
but  that  he  did  not  make  this  central  or  tabernacle  worship 
exclusive.  As  a  great  cathedral  does  not  close  the  parish 
churches,  so  the  cathedral  in  the  wilderness  did  not  close 
to  the  people  the  simpler  houses  of  God,  with  their  altars 
of  earth  or  of  unhewn  stone.  And  so  both  systems,  with 
their  different  cults,  were  recognized  as  legal,  and  went 
on  together  without  hindrance  from  the  authorities  for 
about  five  hundred  and  eighty  years,  Egyptian  chro- 
nology, when  Hezekiah  made  his  attempt  to  centralize 
worship  in  Jerusalem,  and  more  than  six  hundred  and 
fifty  years  when  Josiah  established  the  one  altar  in  the 
Temple  by  making  effective  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  xii. 
This  act  led  the  way  to  the  full  development  of  the  Aaronic 
priesthood  and  the  exclusive  one-altar  worship,  so  defi- 
nitely exploited  in  the  Priests'  Code. 

But  while  there  is  no  place  for  the  law  of  the  exclusive 
priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  among  the  historic 
facts,  as  given  in  the  older  documents,  J.,  E.  and  Dt.,  and 
the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings,  there  is  room  for 
the  central  altar  and  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his 
sons  in  connection  with  the  priests  the  Levites,  as  in  con- 
ducting sacrificial  worship  in  the  Tabernacle  in  the  wil- 
derness, in  the  house  of  God  at  Shiloh,  and  in  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem.  This  becomes  evident  when  we  note  the 
line  of  historic  facts  covering  the  period  from  the  early 
days  of  the  Exodus  to  the  destruction  of  the  Temple. 

According  to  J.  and  E.,  Aaron  was  of  the  family  of 
Levi,  and  was  closely  connected  with  Moses  as  some  sort 
of  an  official  (Exodus  xvii:  12,  xix:  24,  and  xxiv:  i).  He 
was  recognized  by  the  people  as  their  religious  leader 


86  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISlvI. 

when  they  caused  him  to  make  the  golden  calf  to  wor- 
ship, Exodus  xxxii:  22-35.  He,  with  Miriam,  rashly 
claimed  equality  with  Moses  (Numbers  xii:  1-15),  for 
which  defection  the  Lord  showed  indignation  by  with- 
drawing the  cloud  from  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle.  He 
is  not  mentioned  as  connected  with  the  ark,  but  the  priests 
bore  the  ark  at  the  passage  of  Jordan,  and  when  it  rested 
at  Mizpah,  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  a  son  of  Aaron, 
stood  before  it  (Judges  xx:  27);  and  when  the  ark  was  in 
the  house  of  God  in  Shiloh,  Eli,  a  son  of  Aaron,  min- 
istered at  the  central  altar  as  chief  priest.  Note  from 
this  time  forward  that  though  there  are  other  sacrific- 
ings,  yet  the  altar  at  the  Tabernacle  is  honored.  David, 
though  offering  sacrifice  elsewhere,  built  a  tabernacle 
and  restored  the  ark  to  its  place  of  dignity,  appointing 
Abiathar  and  Zadok,  sons  of  Aaron,  priests,  associated 
with  all  the  Levites  (II  Samuel  xv:  24,  25).  When 
Solomon  came  to  the  throne,  he  made  Zadok  priest 
(I  Kings  ii:  35),  and  when  the  ark  was  borne  to  its  place  in 
the  Temple  there  were  great  sacrificings,  at  which  the 
priests  ofhciated  (I  Kings  viii:  11). 

Note  further  that  though  there  were  free  sacrificings 
all  over  the  land  at  the  sacred  places,  yet  the  altar  at  the 
Tabernacle,  with  its  ofhciating  sons  of  Aaron,  was  held  in 
deep  respect;  that  though  David  offered  sacrifice  in  Jeru- 
salem, yet  he  restored  the  Tabernacle  worship  under 
Abiathar  and  Zadok;  and  that  though  Solomon  went  to 
Gibeon  to  sacrifice  there,  and  was  approved  of  God 
(I  Kings  iii:  1-5),  yet,  on  his  return  to  Jerusalem,  he  sac- 
rificed before  the  ark,  thus  showing  his  reverence  for  its 
central  claims,  while  he  exercised  his  legal  freedom  of 
altar  worship  elsewhere  (I  Kings  iii:  15);  and,  finally,  this 
central  worship,  under  leadership  of  sons  of  Aaron,  con- 
tinued down  to  the  captivity  of  Judah  and  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple. 


THE    FOUR   ORIGINAL   DOCUMENTS.  87 

Now,  leaving  out  of  consideration  the  expansions  and 
additions  to  the  laws  of  worship,  etc.,  which  arose  through 
centuries  of  practice  and  became  indistinguishably  classed 
with  the  original  regulations  of  Moses,  we  reach  the 
conclusion  that  the  cxclusk'eiicss  of  the  central  worship, 
the  one  altar,  and  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  were  a  gradual 
development,  reaching  its  first  epoch  in  the  reign  of 
Josiah,  and  attaining  to  its  completed  form,  after  Ezekicl ; 
and  that  the  fully  elaborated  lav;s  as  given  in  Leviticus 
and  Numbers  were  interpolations  into  the  records,  from 
which  the  compiler  of  the  Priests'  Code  drew  his  inform.a- 
tion.  As  the  one  altar  had  been  established  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  all  others  by  Josiah,  in  obedience  to  Deuter- 
onomy, and  as  the  sons  of  Aaron  were  in  connection 
with  its  services,  being  leaders  of  the  "priests  the  Le- 
vites,"  it  was  but  a  logical  step  to  conclude  that  the 
Mosaic  ideal  gave  warrant  for  the  limitation  of  the  actual 
ministrations  at  that  one  altar  to  that  one  family  of 
priests. 

Interpolations  after  this  fashion  do  not  impair  the 
religious  value  of  the  document  containing  them.  Our 
ability  to  disentangle  the  interpolation  from  the  history 
obviously  gives  to  the  latter  higher  claims  to  credit,  and, 
in  this  instance,  makes  clear  the  process  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  priestly  legislation. 

I  insist,  therefore,  that,  after  all  critical  elimination 
and  readjustments  are  made,  the  Priests'  Code  occupies 
a  real  historical  position.  Its  author  looked  at  the  events 
of  Hebrew  life  and  worship  from  a  priestly  standpoint; 
an-d  though  he  made  misstatements  as  to  the  date  and 
sources  of  some  of  the  laws,  he  was  sincere  in  giving 
the  contents  of  the  traditions  he  followed.  But  the  laws 
thus  misplaced  did  not  lose  their  divine  authority.  As- 
signing them  to  Moses  rather  than  to  their  real  source  did 
not  impair  their  significance  in  the  religion  of  Israel;  it 


8S  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

merely  obscured  the  logical  sequence  of  the  several  stages 
of  inspired  progress  from  Closes  to  the  Deuteronomist, 
from  the  Deuteronomist  to  Ezekiel,  and  from  Ezekiel  to 
Ezra. 

Now,  thanks  to  the  Higher  Criticism,  we  are  able 
to  correct  these  misplacements  and  to  show  the  actual 
order  in  which  God  unfolded  his  will  to  his  chosen  people. 
He  gave  to  Moses,  as  we  now  see,  the  germinal  forms 
of  moral,  ecclesiastical  and  civil  organization.  Inspired 
prophets,  judges,  priests  and  kings  amended  and  en- 
larged the  Mosaic  legislation  as  the  emergencies  of  the 
times  required.  The  tent  of  meeting  or  Tabernacle,  with 
its  simple  arrangements,  was  replaced  by  the  Temple;  the 
many  altars  in  sacred  places  were  reduced  to  one  in  the 
Temple,  and  ''the  priests  the  Levites"  became  the 
priests  and  Levites,  etc. 

All  these  changes  were  of  inspired  authority.  The 
book  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  historical  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings  reveal  to  us  the  dates  and  conditions  of  new 
enactments  before  the  Exile,  while  the  books  of  Ezekiel, 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah  make  clear  the  progress  of  priestly 
legislation  under  providential  guidance  until  the  priest- 
hood and  ritual  attain  nearly  the  completeness  of  the  form 
in  which  Christ  found  them. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    ORDER   AND    DATES    OF    THE    COMPOSITE   WORK. 

The  history  of  the  origin  of  the  four  leading  docu- 
ments having  been  outHned,  it  now  becomes  my  duty  to 
give  some  account  of  their  use  in  the  composition  of  the 
Hexateuch.  This  was  not  the  work  of  one  person  nor 
of  one  age.  The  Yahvistic  and  Elohistic  documents 
were  probably  combined  before  Deuteronomy  was  writ- 
ten, because  many  of  their  narratives  and  laws  were  used 
in  the  composition  of  the  latter.  Some  time  after  the 
publication  of  Deuteronomy  it  was  added  to  J.,  E.  This 
combination  gave  to  the  Jews  the  book  of  "the  Law  of 
Moses"  that  we  find  in  use  upon  the  consecration  of  the 
second  Temple,  516  B.  C.  It  must  not  be  imagined  that 
this  sacred  book  had  attained  a  fixed  form  that  rendered 
it  exempt  from  re-editings  and  re-combinations;  on  the 
contrary,  it  was  for  a  long  time  treated  with  great  free- 
dom by  the  learned  scribes.  In  458  B.  C.  Ezra  came  to 
Jerusalem  but  did  not  publish  his  law,  which  was  un- 
doubtedly the  Priests'  Code,  until  444  B.  C.  It  is  hardly 
probable  that  at  this  time  it  had  been  interwoven  with 
Dt.,  J.,  E.,  as  these  constituted  the  ''book  of  the  Law 
of  Moses"  already  in  the  hands  of  the  priests  of  the  sec- 
ond Temple;  and  as  Ezra  in  a  measure  discredited  the 
usage  it  sanctioned.  If,  however,  the  Priests'  Code  was 
at  that  time  a  separate  book,  it  did  not  long  remain  so, 
but  was  soon  combined  with  the  old  book  of  the  law. 
This  gave  to  the  Jews  their  first  canon  of  Scripture,  "the 
Pentateuch,"  and  the  year  432  B.  C.  may  be  taken  as  the 
approximate  date  of  this  composite  work.     It  could  not 


90  REASONS    FOR  THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

have  been  much  later,  for  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
which  was  substantially  a  true  copy  of  it,  must  have  been 
made  near  that  time.  (See  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
by  Ryle,  pp.  91-93.) 

The  Pentateuch  as  thus  compiled  and  accepted  by  the 
people  nevertheless  was  still  treated  with  some  degree 
of  freedom.  But  ''with  the  exception  of  a  fev/  possible 
later  insertions,  and  of  certain  minor  alterations,  due  to 
an  occasional  revision  of  the  text,  'the  Torah'  has  proba- 
bly descended  to  us  very  little  changed." — Ryle. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

HISTORICITY. 

It  is  popularly  held  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  an 
inspired  history,  and  as  such  literally  true,  the  Creation 
chapters  being  special  revelations  to  Moses.  These  views 
were  generally  held  by  even  the  best  Biblical  scholars  be- 
fore geology  demonstrated  the  impossibility  of  the  crea- 
tion of  the  universe  in  six  days.  The  new  science  met 
sharp  resistance,  and  the  results  of  its  discoveries  won 
reluctant  acceptance  only  after  severe  conflict.  The 
theory  that  the  "days"  of  the  creation  record  might  be 
taken  as  "great  cycles  of  time"  was  gladly  welcomed  by 
many  for  a  while.  But  it  soon  became  evident  that  we 
could  not  hold  to  this  view  in  the  face  of  an  honest 
exegesis.  The  first  chapters  of  Genesis  could  no  longer  be 
looked  upon  as  revealed  history.  If  not,  what  then? 
Archaeology,  another  new  science,  answers,  they  are  pre- 
historic traditions  which  came  down  to  the  Jews  from 
their  Babylonian  ancestors,  and  were  probabl}^  known 
to  Abraham  and  cherished  by  him  and  his  descendants 
as  invaluable  treasures  of  their  religion.  This  was  made 
evident  when  George  Smith  had  read  the  Ninevite  tablets, 
and  given  to  the  world  the  legends  of  ancient  Babylonia 
in  his  "Chaldean  Account  of  Genesis"  (1875).  "The  re- 
sult was,"  says  Prof.  Sayce,  "the  earlier  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis no  longer  stood  alone.  Parallel  accounts  had  been 
discovered  by  the  author  among  the  clay  records  of 
ancient  Babylonia,  which  far  exceed  in  antiquity  the  ven- 
erable histories  of  the  Bible."  Since  this  was  written 
Assyriology  has  risen  to  the  dignity  of  a  science,  and  it 

91 


92  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

has  been  demonstrated  that  all  the  narratives  of  the  early 
chapters  of  Genesis  have  behind  them  Assyro-Babylonian 
traditions  reaching  back  many  ages  before  the  days  of 
Moses  or  even  of  Abraham. 

Lenormant  (Beginnings  of  History,  pp.  15,  16)  asks, 
"How  then  should  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  be  re- 
garded? As  a  revealed  account  or  as  a  human  tradition 
preserved  by  inspired  writers  as  the  truest  ancient  record 
of  their  race?  This  is  the  problem  in  comparing  the  nar- 
rations of  the  Sacred  Book  with  those  current  long  ages 
before  the  time  of  Moses  among  the  nations  whose  civili- 
zation dated  back  into  the  remote  past,  with  whom  Israel 
was  surrounded,  from  whom  it  came  out.  As  far  as  I 
myself  am  concerned,  the  conclusion  from  this  study  is 
not  doubtful. 

"That  which  we  read  in  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  is 
not  an  account  dictated  by  God  himself,  the  possession 
of  which  was  the  exclusive  privilege  of  the  chosen  people. 
It  is  a  tradition  whose  origin  is  lost  in  the  night  of  the 
remotest  ages,  and  which  all  the  great  nations  of  Western 
Asia  possessed  in  common,  with  some  variations.  The 
very  form  given  it  in  the  Bible  is  so  closely  related  to  that 
which  has  been  lately  discovered  in  Babylon  and  Chal- 
dea,  it  follows  so  exactly  in  the  same  course,  that  it  is 
quite  impossible  for  me  to  doubt  any  longer  that  it  has 
the  same  origin.  The  family  of  Abraham  carried  this  tra- 
dition with  it  in  the  migration  which  brought  it  from  Ur 
of  the  Chaldees  into  Palestine,  and  even  then  it  was 
doubtless  already,  either  in  a  written  or  an  oral  form,  for 
beneath  the  expressions  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  more  than 
one  place  there  appear  certain  things  which  can  be  ex- 
plained only  as  expressions  peculiar  to  the  Assyrian  lan- 
guage. H<  --}:  *  'pi-^g  Biblical  writers,  in  recording  this 
tradition  at  the  beginning  of  their  books,  created  a  genu- 
ine archaeology  in  the  sense  attached  to  the  word  by  the 


HISTORICITY.  93 

Greeks.  The  first  chapters  of  Genesis  constitute  a  'book 
of  beginnings,'  in  accordance  with  the  stories  handed 
down  in  Israel  from  generation  to  generation,  ever  since 
the  time  of  the  Patriarchs,  which  in  all  its  essential  affirm- 
ations, is  parallel  with  the  statement  of  the  sacred  books 
from  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris." 

It  follows,  therefore,  from  the  teachings  of  geology 
and  archaeology  that  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  are  not 
of  historical  value.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  they  lose 
their  importance  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  as  will  appear 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  subject  of  inspiration. 

Genesis  xi:  27  brings  us  to  the  historic  period  of  He- 
brew literature.  The  genealogy  of  Terah,  the  call  and 
migration  of  Abraham,  the  secular,  social  and  religious 
experiences  of  the  Patriarchs  in  Palestine  and  Egypt,  in 
the  Wilderness  and  in  Canaan — all  lie  within  the  historic 
period,  and  the  documents  recording  them  can  be  studied 
and  interpreted  in  the  light  of  scientific  discoveries. 

Let  it  be  freely  admitted  that  long  before  the  days 
of  Moses  the  Jews  possessed  a  written  literature,  and  in 
common  with  their  civihzed  neighbors  had  records  of 
family,  natal  and  national  events,  and  that  out  of  these 
came  the  documents  which  compose  the  Hexateuch;  still 
the  question  remains — did  their  authors  record  only  his- 
toric happenings  or  have  they  not  gathered  from  the  rich 
stores  of  the  nation's  literature  much  that  cannot,  with  con- 
fidence, be  so  designated?  Have  not  other  legends  than 
those  of  Babylonia  been  utihzed  by  them  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  their  purposes?  If  it  is  true,  as  I  have  tried 
to  show,  that  the  authors  of  the  documents  were  not  his- 
torians but  advocates,  is  it  not  probable  that  they  would 
gladly  use,  in  the  enforcement  of  their  moral  and  rehg- 
ious  lessons,  other  stories  than  those  of  a  strictly  his- 
torical character?  And  if  so,  would  they  impair  the  cred- 
ibility of  their  record  of  really  historical  incidents?  When 


94  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

we  study  Greek  or  Roman  history  we  have  no  difficulty 
with  such  questions.  There  are  laws  of  historical  criti- 
cism that  guide  us,  so  that  we  can  separate  the  legendary 
stories  of  men  and  gods  with  confidence.  Now  the  great 
contribution  of  the  Higher  Criticism  has  been  precisely 
here.  It  has  shown  that  Hebrew  legends  are  not  ex- 
empted from  the  operation  of  these  laws;  but  that,  upon 
the  contrary,  when  scientifically  examined,  they  yield 
equally  satisfactory  results. 

The  critical  process  gives  us  the  real  history  of  the 
Hebrews.  If  some  things  in  the  documents  are  shown  to 
belong  to  the  class  of  parable  or  allegory,  and  others  to 
be  of  the  nature  of  folklore  and  legend,  yet  they  are  all 
legitimately  in  the  line  of  the  history  of  the  nation's  lit- 
erature. 

"Historical  truth  and  revealed  truth  are  essentially  dis- 
tinct. Historical  truth  is  not  ipso  facto  revelation.  Reve- 
lation is  not  necessarily  historical  truth.  A  parable  may 
convey  more  revelation  that  the  most  exact  chronological 
table." — R.  F.  Horton,  Revelation  and  the  Bible,  p.  7. 

In  the  meantime,  the  historic  progress  from  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob  on  to  the  formation  of  the  twelve 
tribes,  together  with  their  exodus,  wilderness-journey 
and  final  conquest  of  Canaan,  remain  beyond  serious 
question.  Incidents  here  and  there  may  be  subjected  to 
corrective  criticism;  but  after  all  is  done  we  may  con- 
fidently affirm  that  the  records  of  no  other  ancient  na- 
tion can  be  compared  for  a  moment  with  these  in  the 
matter  of  positive  historicity. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

INSPIRATION. 

Having  shown  that  the  Hexateuch  is  a  composite 
work,  we  come  now  to  discuss  its  inspiration,  which,  we 
insist,  is  not  antagonized  by  such  origin.  Of  course,  if 
the  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism  are  accepted,  several 
prominent  theories  of  inspiration  must  be  abandoned,  sim- 
ply because  the  new  conditions  leave  no  place  for  them. 

First,  we  find  no  place  for  the  theory  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion according  to  which  the  sacred  writers  became  mere 
stenographers  of  the  Spirit ;  for  the  critical  process  shows 
that  they  freely  used  variant  documents,  besides  impos- 
ing upon  their  compositions  the  peculiarities  of  their  style 
and  the  defects  of  their  literary  and  scientific  attainments. 

Second,  we  are  compelled  to  reject  the  claim  that  the 
inspiration  of  the  Hexateuch  was  of  such  a  nature  that 
the  authors  were  preserved  from  all  error.  This  we  re- 
ject, because  the  critical  method  has  pointed  out  quite  a 
number  of  imperfections  in  this  compilation. 

But  the  inspiration  which  we  can  find  room  for  in 
view  of  the  facts  made  evident  by  the  critical  method 
may  be  thus  outlined: 

A  prophet  becomes  profoundly  conscious  of  receiving 
from  God  great  religious  and  moral  truths,  either  by  ob- 
jective revelation  or  spiritual  illumination,  or  both,  which 
truths  he  is  under  like  consciousness  impelled  to  publish 
as  divine  revelations.  This  he  proceeds  to  do  in  his  own 
literary  style,  in  the  common  language  of  the  people,  us- 
ing such  illustrations  drawn  from  the  current  literature 
as  will  make  clear  and  enforce  his  inspired  concepts.    To 

95 


96  REASONS    FOR   THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

this  end  he  levies  draughts  upon  ancient  legends,  tradi- 
tions, historical  records,  poetry,  folk  stories,  parables, 
allegories  and  popular  science. 

Accepting  this  idea  of  inspiration,  we  must  note  that 
the  divinely  given  concepts,  consciously  held  by  the 
prophet,  are  shaped  and  colored  by  the  limitations  and 
characteristics  of  his  mind  and  heart;  and  may,  when 
delivered  to  the  people,  be  far  below  the  divine  ideal, 
though  of  immense  value  to  the  world  as  then  condi- 
tioned. 

But,  in  spite  of  all  limitations,  he  is  in  a  most  notable 
degree  above  his  age,  and  when  he  uses  the  current  lit- 
erature he  fills  it  with  a  new  and  diviner  spirit-  Ancient 
historic  facts  or  legends  take  on  a  higher  significance, 
and  are  made  to  illustrate  a  loftier  theism  and  a  purer 
morality.  If  he  uses,  as  does  the  author  of  the  Priests' 
Code,  the  Babylonian  story  of  Creation  (Genesis  i-ii:  4) 
he  transforms  it  into  a  sublime  monotheistic  Hymn  of  Cre- 
ation. Says  Lenormant,  "It  is  the  same  narrative,  and  in 
it  the  same  episodes  succeed  one  another  in  like  manner; 
and  yet  one  would  be  blind  not  to  perceive  that  the  sig- 
nificance has  become  altogether  different.  The  exuberant 
polytheism  which  encumbers  these  stories  among  the 
Chaldeans  has  been  carefully  eliminated  to  give  place  to 
the  severest  monotheism.  What  formerly  expressed  a 
naturalistic  conception  of  moral  grossness  here  becomes 
the  garb  of  moral  truth  of  the  most  exalted  and  most 
purely  spiritual  order.  The  essential  features  of  the  form 
of  the  tradition  have  been  preserved,  yet  between  the 
Bible  and  the  sacred  books  of  Chaldea  there  is  all  the 
distance  of  one  of  the  most  tremendous  revolutions  which 
has  ever  been  effected  in  human  beliefs.  Herein  consists 
the  miracle,  and  it  is  none  the  less  amazing  for  being 
transposed.  Others  may  seek  to  explain  this  by  the  simple 
natural  process  of  the  conscience  of  humanity;  for  myself 


INSPIRATION.  97 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  find  in  it  the  effect  of  a  supernatural 
intervention  of  Divine  Providence,  and  I  bow  before  the 
God  who  inspired  the  law  and  the  prophets." — Begin- 
nings of  History,  p.  15. 

The  inspiration,  therefore,  is  not  in  the  ancient  tradi- 
tions and  historical  incidents  recorded  by  the  sacred 
writers,  but  it  is  their  transformation,  and  in  the  use 
made  of  them  as  vehicles  for  teaching  profound  religious 
truths. 

Here  we  are  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  The  tradition- 
alists insist  that  no  legend  or  folk-story  has  place  in  the 
Pentateuch,  but  that  all  must  be  accepted  as  history  or 
as  the  direct  revelation  of  pre-historic  events.  This  posi- 
tion we  have  seen  to  be  contrary  to  the  facts,  and  thus 
incredible  to  those  who  desire  to  serve  the  cause  of  truth. 

For  the  sake  of  clearness  I  beg  the  privilege  of  again 
giving  an  outline  of  the  work  of  the  authors  of  J.,  E., 
Dt,  and  P.,  to  show  their  inspiration  as  to  matters  ethical 
and  religious  and  their  use  of  traditions,  historical  and 
legendary,  as  well  as  of  folk-stories. 

The  Yahvist  confronted  in  Judah  a  general  tendency 
to  idolatry  and  civic  and  social  corruption,  and  he  was 
inspired  to  impress  upon  tne  people  the  supreme  great- 
ness of  Yahweh  and  his  stern  severity  as  a  righteous 
judge,  as  well  as  his  loving  kindness  to  his  faithful  ser- 
vants. He  pursued  the  inductive  method  and  laid  the 
whole  literature  of  his  country  under  contribution.  He 
began  by  showing  Yahweh  to  be  the  creator  of  all  things, 
claiming  absolute  obedience  to  his  will — who  set  before 
man  in  Eden,  life  and  death,  and  after  disobedience,  exe- 
cuted the  penalty.  Later  on  he  destroyed  the  wicked 
world  by  the  deluge,  saving  righteous  Noah  and  his  fam- 
ily. The  author  narrates  the  call  of  Abraham  from  the 
midst  of  idolaters,  that  he  may  be  made  a  great  nation. 
Severity  and  compassion  in  like  fashion  mark  the  course 


98  REASONS   FOR  THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

of  God's  providences  all  through  the  experiences  re- 
corded by  the  Yahvist  in  Genesis,  Exodus  and  Joshua. 
All  the  incidents  selected  by  this  great  prophet  are  such 
as  show  that  Yahweh  saves  the  righteous  and  punishes 
the  wicked,  to  the  end  that  He  may  make  of  his  chosen 
people  a  righteous  nation,  having  no  God  but  Yahweh, 
who  could  only  be  served  acceptably  in  obedience  to  his 
covenants  of  law. 

The  Elohist,  who  was  of  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
about  fifty  years  later  wrote  his  document  to  counteract 
like  evil  tendencies. 

He  exalts  the  goodness  of  Elohim  in  his  dealings  with 
Abraham  and  his  family,  especially  emphasizing  the  ele- 
vation of  Joseph  as  a  reward  of  his  righteousness.  The 
incidents  of  the  Exodus,  which  he  makes  prominent,  show 
God's  severity  to  the  wicked  Pharoah  and  his  love  to  suf- 
fering Israel.  He  makes  conspicuous  the  moral  law  by 
recording  the  grand  scenes  of  its  deliverance  as  it  was 
spoken  by  Elohim  from  Mount  Sinai. 

His  conceptions  of  true  righteousness  are  in  con- 
formity with  this  law,  and,  unlike  the  Yahvist,  it  has  little 
or  no  connection  with  things  ecclesiastical.  Righteous- 
ness with  him  is  obedience  to  the  moral  law  as  enforced  by 
prophets  without  the  aid  of  priestly  intervention.  He 
seems  to  have  been  of  a  deeply  spiritual  nature,  and  his 
religious  teaching  finds  full  expression  in  the  prophets 
Hosea  and  Isaiah. 

The  Deuteronomist  lived  in  the  period  of  the  greatest 
defection  of  the  Hebrews  from  Yahweh.  Idolatry  in  its 
w^orst  forms  was  triumphant.  The  high  places  of  heathen 
worship  crowned  the  hills  around  the  Holy  City,  and  the 
Temple  was  invaded  by  heathen  altars  built  by  Manasseh, 
who  for  more  than  fifty  years  led  that  defection  from 
Jehovah  so  graphically  portrayed  in  II  Kings  xxi.  The 
book  of  Deuteronomy  represents  (or  is  the  outcome  of 


INSPIRATION.  99 

a  great  religious  renaissance)  an  inspired  movement  to 
bring  the  people  back  to  their  true  allegiance.  Its  com- 
piler saw  that  amidst  the  general  defection  there  was  still 
great  reverence  for  Moses,  but  widespread  ignorance  of 
his  life  and  laws,  as  well  as  of  the  wonderful  providences 
of  Yahweh  by  which  Israel  had  been  brought  in  safety  to 
the  promised  land.  There  were  traditions  in  abundance 
of  these  things,  but  they  were  known  only  to  the  few  in 
prophetical  and  priestly  circles.  To  bring  them  out  and 
give  them  popular  form  was  the  manifest  aim  of  the 
writer.  The  story  of  the  Wilderness,  as  presumably  re- 
hearsed by  Moses,  was  recast,  and  the  substance  of  his 
closing  discourses  was  given  in  a  style  and  with  dramatic 
settings  calculated  to  win  a  hearing  from  the  people  and 
move  them  to  repentance. 

The  first  public  reading  of  the  book,  as  authorized  by 
King  Josiah,  was  followed  immediately  by  a  remarkable 
reformation,  and  for  the  first  time  in  Jewish  history  the 
sacrificial  worship  of  the  people  was  confined  to  the 
Temple  in  Jerusalem.  Such  was  the  purpose  and  such 
the  result  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  Of  its  inspira- 
tion there  cannot  be  the  faintest  doubt. 

The  Priests'  Code,  studied  in  the  light  of  inspiration 
as  above  defined,  has  much  to  confirm  its  contention  for 
the  divine  origin  of  its  priesthood  and  ritual.  They  were 
the  outcome  of  many  ''inspirations;"  that  is  to  say,  all 
of  their  leading  features  came  into  prominence  from  time 
to  time  as  providentially  ordered.  First  came  through 
Moses  the  prominence  of  Aaron  and  his  sons 
in  the  sacrifices  at  the  Tabernacle  or  tent  of  meet- 
ing. Second,  the  one-altar  law  as  enforced  by  King 
Josiah.  Third,  the  law  of  Ezekiel  confining  the  priestly 
office  to  the  sons  of  Zadok,  which  law  was  given  full 
eflfect  in  the  second  Temple  by  Ezra.  The  fact,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  that  some  of  these  laws  were  given  a 


3n 


100  REASONS   FOR   THE   HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

mistaken  chronology  and  authorship  by  the  compiler,  by 
referring  them  to  Moses,  did  not  impair  their  authority 
as  the  products  of  inspiration.  It  was  a  grand  movement 
that  brought  the  whole  system  into  that  unity  of  Temple 
w^orship  wdiich  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  recognizes  as 
the  creation  of  God,  symbolizing  the  true  Temple  with  its 
Holy  Place  and  Christ  as  the  one  Priest  and  one  Sacri- 
fice. 

Every  stage  of  this  divinely  ordered  development  was 
a  preparation  for  the  next,  just  as  the  last  one,  with  its 
High  Priest  and  day  of  Atonement,  was  the  final  symbol 
of  Him  who  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God. 

The  traditional  and  critical  views  of  revelation  are  face 
to  face  in  open  antagonism.  The  former  insists  that 
Moses  and  Joshua  wrote  inspired  history  which  in  all  its 
details  w^as  infallible.  The  latter  contends  that  many  in- 
spired men  made  use  of  the  whole  literature  of  the  people 
for  unfolding  the  facts  and  the  doctrines  of  faith  and 
morals  that  they  were  commissi^oned  to  reveal.  The 
former  is  unique,  having  no  points  in  harmony  with  the 
intellectual  and  spiritual  development  of  mankind.  While 
the  latter  is  in  universal  touch  with  all  the  facts  of  an  ad- 
vancing civilization,  the  former  stands  in  the  shadow  of 
long- vanished  systems  of  religion,  science  and  philos- 
ophy; the  latter  in  the  light  of  the  comprehensive  results 
of  the  best  scholarship  of  the  nineteenth  century  in  all 
departments  of  learning.  It  finds  in  the  wonderful  dis- 
coveries of  the  age,  inspirations  to  the  profoundest  belief 
that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  were  the  word  of  God  to  his 
chosen  people,  and  were  a  conspicuous  part  of  that  great 
movement  of  Providence  by  which  ''God,  who  of  old  time 
spake  unto  the  fathers  in  the  prophets  by  divers  portions 
and  in  divers  manners,  hath  at  the  end  of  these  days 
spoken  unto  us  in  his  Son." 


Date  Due 

m 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

'  •j,.,i,v''('  'Sv/j.  .if'A..    A-w.  .'.  A'L'^:'?''Im 


BS1215.4.G44 

Reasons  for  the  higher  criticism  of  the 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


llllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll^ 

1    1012  00012  1428 


